NationStates Jolt Archive

*is this the same Kuwait that was rightly invaded by Saddam for slamdrilling Iraqs oilwells? The same Kuwait which STILL isnt a democracy even tho Bush the First "liberated" it?

Kuwait Bans Fahrenheit 9/11
And Kuwait has banned Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11 Sunday because it violates a law that prohibits insulting friendly nations. One Kuwaiti official said that the film "insulted the Saudi royal family by saying they had common interests with the Bush family and that those interests contradicted with the interests of the American people."

www.democracynow.org

Yeah, I actually read that in the newspaper.. pretty harsh.. oh well it's a good thing we all made Kuwait a free country back in 91.. erm.. uhh, wait.. :rolleyes:

That's a disgrace...the Kuwaitis should be some of the first people to see it from what I've heard

if you care to actualy look at the 911 official report you will quickly realize that mr. moore's movie is complete nonsense. i own the report. i saw the movie. i am no right wing nut case. the movie farenheit 911 is an unfair exploitation of a sad event and a pathetic money making scheme off of the war. im glad kuwait banned it. their government must have more sense than several million of our citizens who dont have eyes that can see through moore's lies.

*is this the same Kuwait that was rightly invaded by Saddam for slamdrilling Iraqs oilwells? The same Kuwait which STILL isnt a democracy even tho Bush the First "liberated" it?

Kuwait Bans Fahrenheit 9/11
And Kuwait has banned Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11 Sunday because it violates a law that prohibits insulting friendly nations. One Kuwaiti official said that the film "insulted the Saudi royal family by saying they had common interests with the Bush family and that those interests contradicted with the interests of the American people."

www.democracynow.org

No, no - we were just upset at Iraq for invading Kuwait because they trying to bankrupt them. We didn't really care about bringing freedom and democracy to Kuwait.


Freedom and democracy is reserved for countries that deserve it... like Iraq!


You gotta be really despotic befor you deserve that!

if you care to actualy look at the 911 official report you will quickly realize that mr. moore's movie is complete nonsense. i own the report. i saw the movie. i am no right wing nut case. the movie farenheit 911 is an unfair exploitation of a sad event and a pathetic money making scheme off of the war. im glad kuwait banned it. their government must have more sense than several million of our citizens who dont have eyes that can see through moore's lies.

While I agree with what you said about the movie, it's a shame that the country doesn't allow the same right to free speech that we enjoy in America.

"is this the same Kuwait that was rightly invaded by Saddam"
you cannot be serious. we have yet another lover of saddam here! bet you were against this war though! good lord, i cant understand people anymore. ever get a look at the 1.3 million the UN says are in mass graves from your buddy saddam? good lord.

Yeah, I actually read that in the newspaper.. pretty harsh.. oh well it's a good thing we all made Kuwait a free country back in 91.. erm.. uhh, wait.. :rolleyes:LOL true true...but whats never mentioned about the first golf war was that Kuwait instigated this invasion AND Bush Srs ambassador at the time gave Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait! So it appears that Saddam was setup from the start (im not defending Saddam here but I also dont see how Saddam was anymore brutal then the Saudi royal family or any other arab leader)

what bronyland said is right

if you care to actualy look at the 911 official report you will quickly realize that mr. moore's movie is complete nonsense. i own the report. i saw the movie. i am no right wing nut case. the movie farenheit 911 is an unfair exploitation of a sad event and a pathetic money making scheme off of the war. im glad kuwait banned it. their government must have more sense than several million of our citizens who dont have eyes that can see through moore's lies.

That's odd, because Michael Moore uses the 9/11 report to back up his movie (http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/index.php?id=24)

didnt the 911 commission discredit mr. moores claim about saudis being 'secretly flown out' of america after ' not being investigated by the fbi?"
and didnt kean, the chairman make it clear iraq had ties to alqueda?

if you care to actualy look at the 911 official report you will quickly realize that mr. moore's movie is complete nonsense. i own the report. i saw the movie. i am no right wing nut case. the movie farenheit 911 is an unfair exploitation of a sad event and a pathetic money making scheme off of the war. im glad kuwait banned it. their government must have more sense than several million of our citizens who dont have eyes that can see through moore's lies.
show me where specifically the 911 report disproves Moore

didnt the 911 commission discredit mr. moores claim about saudis being 'secretly flown out' of america after ' not being investigated by the fbi?"
and didnt kean, the chairman make it clear iraq had ties to alqueda?
and how about mr. clark. it doesnt potray him very well...

No, no - we were just upset at Iraq for invading Kuwait because they trying to bankrupt them. We didn't really care about bringing freedom and democracy to Kuwait.


Freedom and democracy is reserved for countries that deserve it... like Iraq!


You gotta be really despotic befor you deserve that!
I always thought Saddam was a pretty typical arab leader--no more brutal then the rest-But this is part of the larger regional problem in the arab world where lack of democracy has created this scenario

you people are blaming kuwait for iraqs total invasion of them??? total invasion? and now you blame george bush. look, we were talking about current events. current. and mr. moore must be so happy he made 100 million dollars off of a war.

To be fair along that train of thought - Kuwait DID do their best to profit off of the Iran-Iraq war by:

a) buying up Iraq's foreign debt
b) demanding repayment
while
c) flooding the oil market with as much output as it could manage in violation of thier OPEC agreement in order to drive down prices and put the squeeze on Baghdad.

Not saying that war was justified, but in a "direct threat to the economic security" department, Iraq had a good argument - more than any WMD argument for THIS war we now find ourselves in.

didnt the 911 commission discredit mr. moores claim about saudis being 'secretly flown out' of america after ' not being investigated by the fbi?"
and didnt kean, the chairman make it clear iraq had ties to alqueda?
and how about mr. clark. it doesnt potray him very well...

I don't know, look for yourself..

Click (http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/index.php?id=24)

no other arab leader has 1.3 million peoples blood on his hands. i dont think thats too typical. do you?

"is this the same Kuwait that was rightly invaded by Saddam"
you cannot be serious. we have yet another lover of saddam here! bet you were against this war though! good lord, i cant understand people anymore. ever get a look at the 1.3 million the UN says are in mass graves from your buddy saddam? good lord.
Actually I think Saddam should be tried for crimes against humanity-but I also feel the same way about George Bush-and since when does the Bush family care about people in mass graves? neocon foreign policy added millions to those mass graves worldwide, whyd they start caring about the innocent victims of their warped policies now?

didnt the 911 commission discredit mr. moores claim about saudis being 'secretly flown out' of america after ' not being investigated by the fbi?"
and didnt kean, the chairman make it clear iraq had ties to alqueda?
and how about mr. clark. it doesnt potray him very well...

Actually, the 911 Commission Report pretty much dismissed the existance of any IRaq-Al Qaeda link

Whether or not the 9/11 Report descredits Moore, I don't think he is using it for a money making scheme. Granted, it is indeed making him money, he is more using as a means to get his political message across....

didnt the 911 commission discredit mr. moores claim about saudis being 'secretly flown out' of america after ' not being investigated by the fbi?"
and didnt kean, the chairman make it clear iraq had ties to alqueda?
No--youve been listening to foxnews lies again.

you are all right! im so sorry! we should have left saddam in power! kuwait was rightly his! bush is the real criminal. those 1.3 million in mass graves dont count. YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS. IM OUT OF HERE YOU ARE MAKING ME SO SICK. I NEED TO THROW UP ON SOMEONE TO FEEL BETTER. HUZZA TO SADDAM! DOWN WITH BUSH! IM LEAVING, BUT REMEMBER, IM JSUT ON UR SIDE.

no other arab leader has 1.3 million peoples blood on his hands. i dont think thats too typical. do you?

The only way you can use that number is if you included all of the war dead for the IRa-Iraq war which is a rediculous thing to pin all on one side of the war.

As to the actual number, Blair recently had to admit that so far the total count of bodies from mass graves found was 5,000 - nowhere even near the 400,000 he had previously used as his number.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1263901,00.html

i didnt here that on fox news,i heard kean say it in a press conference on cnn. oh, 50,000 dead, we can live with that! you saddam lovers are bogus. please, im leaving.

no other arab leader has 1.3 million peoples blood on his hands. i dont think thats too typical. do you?
In the arab world, yes. And speaking of hands, Bushs masters in Saudi Arabia still cut peoples hands off-these are the kinds of barbarians that are in charge of most arab countries today

i didnt here that on fox news,i heard kean say it in a press conference on cnn. oh, 50,000 dead, we can live with that! you saddam lovers are bogus. please, im leaving.

Actually, I misquoted. The news story was 5,000 and I edited my post.

Incidentaly - how many Iraqis have died so far since the invasion?


But excuse us for basing our statements about the contents of the report on ... the report!

you all have fun in your far left loopy hall of mirrors. thank god all of you propel moderate democrates like me away from you or america would have some pretty dopy leaders. see you all in cuba! speaking of that........who the f are u all voting for. nobody that i know if even approaches your wild ass theories.....maby socialists, idk

you are all right! im so sorry! we should have left saddam in power! kuwait was rightly his! bush is the real criminal. those 1.3 million in mass graves dont count. YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS. IM OUT OF HERE YOU ARE MAKING ME SO SICK. I NEED TO THROW UP ON SOMEONE TO FEEL BETTER. HUZZA TO SADDAM! DOWN WITH BUSH! IM LEAVING, BUT REMEMBER, IM JSUT ON UR SIDE.
I dont see anyone defending Saddam here and again as for the mass graves, if they bother Bush so much then why doesnt he change his policies that put people in them instead of attacking other nations that just copied US foreign policy abroad?

People seem to be wandering from the point of this thread.

Kuwait banned it because it insulted several prominent families. Imagine if a foreign movie made claims that Ben Afflek and J Lo were bribing a central african president in order to obtain large amounts of fresh ivory. The documentary would be made to point out the Central African Presidents awful job at running the country, and trys to draw lines between his interests and the interests of people who hes doing business with. Then we [Americans] get mad about it because it's insulting, factually bankrupt, and being believed by a laughable amount of people. Of course, our free speech laws would still allow it to be shown, (and allow people to protest it) but kuwait has no such laws.

you all have fun in your far left loopy hall of mirrors. thank god all of you propel moderate democrates like me away from you or america would have some pretty dopy leaders. see you all in cuba! speaking of that........who the f are u all voting for. nobody that i know if even approaches your wild ass theories.....maby socialists, idk


lfar leftiberals cant stay on topic...

To be fair along that train of thought - Kuwait DID do their best to profit off of the Iran-Iraq war by:

a) buying up Iraq's foreign debt
b) demanding repayment
while
c) flooding the oil market with as much output as it could manage in violation of thier OPEC agreement in order to drive down prices and put the squeeze on Baghdad.

Not saying that war was justified, but in a "direct threat to the economic security" department, Iraq had a good argument - more than any WMD argument for THIS war we now find ourselves in.
You forgot an important one Zep. Kuwait was also directional boring into Iraqi oilfields as well.

i didnt here that on fox news,i heard kean say it in a press conference on cnn. oh, 50,000 dead, we can live with that! you saddam lovers are bogus. please, im leaving.
Now does everyone see the kind of damage foxnews does? this post proves that alot of political ignorance in america is a DIRECT result of foxnews biast propaganda mill--also cnn is a part of the corporate-pablum puking media-this is why the american media needs radio stations like air america to spread nationwide to counter all the lies

Lets All Defend Saddam Now. All Together Now!

no other arab leader has 1.3 million peoples blood on his hands. i dont think thats too typical. do you?
How many of those deaths could be attributed to supplies received from the US and other western countries?

Also, I do believe that your figure of 1.3 million is way too high?

i dont watch fox news. you are all so freaking warped.

ok, so u still dont get it. i dont watxh fox news. kerry has my vote for now. but u people are fringe wackos. i cant stand it. you justify saddams actions, hate the president, and misuse my words. please try to be better people next time. bye

i dont watch fox news. you are all so freaking warped.


Hey, I've tried to give you a link twice now, you seem to wander right on past it..

See if what he says is also on the pages he says it's on in the 9/11 report.

I also have a copy of the 9/11 report, bought it the first day it came out on Amazon.com

LINK CLICK IT (http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/index.php?id=24)

you all have fun in your far left loopy hall of mirrors. thank god all of you propel moderate democrates like me away from you or america would have some pretty dopy leaders. see you all in cuba! speaking of that........who the f are u all voting for. nobody that i know if even approaches your wild ass theories.....maby socialists, idk
its not our fault your so uninformed but any moderate democrat that disagrees should be purged, starting with that useless sack of shit Lieberman

next time someone as left wing as u becomes president il ice skate in hell
how nice of u to speak of purgings ( stalin) and calling anyone a 'sack of shit;

Lets All Defend Saddam Now. All Together Now!
LOL--the Bush family was the biggest defender and armer of Saddam for most of his years in power--its only when Saddams secularism became a threat to Bushs fundamentalist saudi masters that Bush turned against him

you make kerry look like the second coming of limbaugh

good luck finding support outside the margin of error in polls. goodnight , wise up

ok, so u still dont get it. i dont watxh fox news. kerry has my vote for now. but u people are fringe wackos. i cant stand it. you justify saddams actions, hate the president, and misuse my words. please try to be better people next time. bye
when are you actually leaving? heh

ok, so u still dont get it. i dont watxh fox news. kerry has my vote for now. but u people are fringe wackos. i cant stand it. you justify saddams actions, hate the president, and misuse my words. please try to be better people next time. bye
We believe you...honestly we do....


From another thread:

22-06-2004, 11:47 PM


"you left wingers have crossed the line. Stop selectively listening to things to support perverted ideological rhetoric. The man is PRESIDENT and is WELL MEANING, RELIGIOUS, AND WORKING TO RID THE WORLD OF TERRORISTS. no man in the history of the world has KILLED more terrorists than Bush! Stop being rediculous and debate the real issues instead of being distracted by this bullshit. I hope BUSH gets reelected the continue his fights. It seems that no matter what he does you people just damn him to hell. I say we take a more moderate course and only consider substantialted facts. Scary idea huh?"

Cute?

We believe you...honestly we do....


From another thread:

22-06-2004, 11:47 PM



Cute?

Hahaha, yeah, I wasn't buying the "I'm a moderate Democrate" thing any way..lol

Good for the Kuwaitis. We need that prima donna windbag like we need a bullet through the teeth....

Actually I found it quite funny that more used documentation of the Saudis being flown out. What he doesn't say in the movie however is that they were flown out on 9/13, when commercial air travel had been reinstated. He even showed that document in the movie. And that's just the tip of Moore's lies. Don't forget how the Saudi's invited him to come to Saudi Arabia and speak with princes and prominent members of the Bin Laden family, even providing him security clearances and so forth, but he declined. Why? He might actually get the truth instead of trumped up lies he could use in his movie. Brilliant Mr. Moore, no better yet, shame on you Michael Moore.

Actually I found it quite funny that more used documentation of the Saudis being flown out. What he doesn't say in the movie however is that they were flown out on 9/13, when commercial air travel had been reinstated. He even showed that document in the movie. And that's just the tip of Moore's lies. Don't forget how the Saudi's invited him to come to Saudi Arabia and speak with princes and prominent members of the Bin Laden family, even providing him security clearances and so forth, but he declined. Why? He might actually get the truth instead of trumped up lies he could use in his movie. Brilliant Mr. Moore, no better yet, shame on you Michael Moore.

Moore has never claimed they were flown out before 9/13.. sorry, I've seen the movie and I've read the detractor sites and I've read the Moore war room.. you got nothing.

Actually I found it quite funny that more used documentation of the Saudis being flown out. What he doesn't say in the movie however is that they were flown out on 9/13, when commercial air travel had been reinstated. He even showed that document in the movie. And that's just the tip of Moore's lies. Don't forget how the Saudi's invited him to come to Saudi Arabia and speak with princes and prominent members of the Bin Laden family, even providing him security clearances and so forth, but he declined. Why? He might actually get the truth instead of trumped up lies he could use in his movie. Brilliant Mr. Moore, no better yet, shame on you Michael Moore.
more likely Moore didnt meet with them cause he knew if he did people like you would twist it around and use it to smear Moore for meeting with the Saudis the same way Bush does

more likely Moore didnt meet with them cause he knew if he did people like you would twist it around and use it to smear Moore for meeting with the Saudis the same way Bush does

That or Moore would end up in the hands of Al Qaeda.. by mistake of course.. I wouldn't put it past the Saudi's...

Yeah the fact is that while you may disagree with the movie, or Moores anaylsis or arguments, the facts are fundamentally sound. A reporter from the NY Times went through the entire movie and found all the basic contentions to be supported from the public record. So argure about his methods, or his argument, but for gods sake stop saying that he lied. You're wrong get over it, not everyone justifies themselves with falsehoods.

That or Moore would end up in the hands of Al Qaeda.. by mistake of course.. I wouldn't put it past the Saudi's...
me either considering the backstabbing Saudi royal maggots recent history of funding al queda--The Saudi royal family have always posed a far bigger threat to national security then the helpless unarmed Saddam ever did
*btw Bush would also prolly be fully supportive of the saudis letting al queda kidnap Moore as well, since Bush envies the way his Saudi masters are allowed to execute their political opponents

Yes Moore did claim they were flown out "when no one in this country was allowed to fly", implying the Saudis were given special treatment and allowed to fly prior to 9/13 when the ban was in place on commercial flights in this country. So sorry Stephistan, I do have something there.

Furthermore, Moore's lies, unprofessionalism and using footage (interviews mainly) without permission are blatant. A quite memorable one is the blacking out of James Bath's name on the military records when they were released in 2004. While Moore may have obtained his in 2001 with the name not blacked out, it's protocol for publically released military records to have blackened names to protect the health records. That's just common knowledge there, the military isn't the only institution to practice this tactic.

Moore is such a damn phony it's unbelievable he's able to get away with this crap. Take his whole crusading for Flint. First of all, he's not even from Flint, he lived in the much richer suberb of Flint, Davison, which has a very white population. He took advantage of Flint by cashing in off of their unfortunate situation and now he preys on the minds of leftist idiots who'll believe anything that Moore tries to scrape together.

Also you might want to check out Condi Rice's speech about the supposed 9/11 and Iraq connection. Convieniently Moore took the first part of her speech and only used that. Read the whole speech sometime. It makes a lot more sense, a lot more than the propaganda Moore uses in Fahrenheit 9/11.

Yes Moore did claim they were flown out "when no one in this country was allowed to fly", implying the Saudis were given special treatment and allowed to fly prior to 9/13 when the ban was in place on commercial flights in this country. So sorry Stephistan, I do have something there.

Furthermore, Moore's lies, unprofessionalism and using footage (interviews mainly) without permission are blatant. A quite memorable one is the blacking out of James Bath's name on the military records when they were released in 2004. While Moore may have obtained his in 2001 with the name not blacked out, it's protocol for publically released military records to have blackened names to protect the health records. That's just common knowledge there, the military isn't the only institution to practice this tactic.

Moore is such a damn phony it's unbelievable he's able to get away with this crap. Take his whole crusading for Flint. First of all, he's not even from Flint, he lived in the much richer suberb of Flint, Davison, which has a very white population. He took advantage of Flint by cashing in off of their unfortunate situation and now he preys on the minds of leftist idiots who'll believe anything that Moore tries to scrape together.

Also you might want to check out Condi Rice's speech about the supposed 9/11 and Iraq connection. Convieniently Moore took the first part of her speech and only used that. Read the whole speech sometime. It makes a lot more sense, a lot more than the propaganda Moore uses in Fahrenheit 9/11.
what does any of this have to do with Bushs plan to invade Iraq since day One? If Bush was only honest enuf to admit he invaded Iraq for his own personal reasons he might get more respect-But Bushs lies insult our intelligence

Yes Moore did claim they were flown out "when no one in this country was allowed to fly", implying the Saudis were given special treatment and allowed to fly prior to 9/13 when the ban was in place on commercial flights in this country. So sorry Stephistan, I do have something there.

Eh, I saw the movie, that's not what he said, he said they were flown out after 9/13, which is in fact when air spaced re-opened. So, I'm going to have to call foul on this one.

Alright, suppose you have Mi-6, the CIA, and Russian Intelligence (backed by Russian President Vladimir Putin) telling you that Iraq has these weapons and can use them. You've known that Saddam Hussein has funded through Hamas, amongst many terrorist organizations, the families of suicide bombers. You also have been getting this intelligence with no contradiction from 3 of the most reputable intelligence gathering agencies in the world. I'd say based on what was heard from those 3 (including Putin, who only acknowledged this AFTER we went to war, as Russia's situation with Iraq is a whole other issue) that Iraq has weapons.

Now if Bush and the White House has this information being backed up by not only our intelligence agency but others from around the world, you'd think it would be correct, right? So he was not lying about them at all for his gain. The popular misconception is the oil argument, which any moronic liberal will use as the reason we went to war with Iraq. Clearly we've benefitted from the oil as we've taken it all, our gasoline prices have surely went down and we have all this Iraqi oil free to use however we want. Wrong!

If you're being misinformed by someone with a strong reputation and you believe it to be true as most in the international arena did, then that's hardly a lie. It's been acknowledge since then by not only the President but by Tony Blair as well that intelligence errors lead to what happened. That's hardly the lie that liberals try to brand Bush for. If you want someone to blame, blame the CIA, MI-6 and Russian Intelligence. There's a difference between lying and being misinformed as I pointed out. Lying means you actually knew the truth and spun it your own way. Even Richard Clarke who was supposedly told to trump up information on Iraq has recanted, and of course his quotes were taken out of context by the spin master himself, Michael Moore.

Stephistan, I have seen the movie too. But I'm going to play devil's advocate here with you.

Suppose he never made this argument. Why does he even insert the Saudi's leaving America? What point would this possibly be making about the Saudi's being privileged? Why is this any different from anyone else leaving America shortly after 9/11?

I can remember precisely Moore's line, and I said it earlier. See the movie again if you're a little foggy, but this is the point Moore is trying to make, albeit unsuccessfully. His point is the Saudi's were allowed to fly out before commercial air travel was allowed to resume. That is one of the main points he tries to make, that the Saudi's could do anything since they are such good friends with the Bush administration and family.

didnt the 911 commission discredit mr. moores claim about saudis being 'secretly flown out' of america after ' not being investigated by the fbi?"
and didnt kean, the chairman make it clear iraq had ties to alqueda?
and how about mr. clark. it doesnt potray him very well...

michael moore's claim ain't completely rediculous, check out what snopes says about it:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm
i think the point moore was trying to get out was that he paid the bin laden family some favors, which cant be denied. bush is linked with the saudis financially. the bushes and the saudis have been friends for a while. this clouds his judgement. can you dispute this? you can get nit-picky about the specifics, but the big picture remains: bush went after the guy who killed his father and ignored the country the terrorists were from. they dont let detectives investigate murders involving family or friends. why are we letting our president?

also, can you point me in the direction of where the 9-11 commision links al-queda and iraq, id be interested to read that.

Stephistan, I have seen the movie too. But I'm going to play devil's advocate here with you.

Suppose he never made this argument. Why does he even insert the Saudi's leaving America? What point would this possibly be making about the Saudi's being privileged? Why is this any different from anyone else leaving America shortly after 9/11?

I can remember precisely Moore's line, and I said it earlier. See the movie again if you're a little foggy, but this is the point Moore is trying to make, albeit unsuccessfully. His point is the Saudi's were allowed to fly out before commercial air travel was allowed to resume. That is one of the main points he tries to make, that the Saudi's could do anything since they are such good friends with the Bush administration and family.

Ok, have an open mind just for a frew minutes. Now I bought a copy of the 9/11 report the day it came out on Amazon.com

Just see, if what he says is backed up by the report. Be a skeptic, sure, but keep an open mind. There is a full version of the 9/11 report on the net. You might have to google it, but he gives exact pages from the report to back up his facts. Just take a look and if you feel the same way, I shall not try to convince you.

Facts Backed Up By 9/11 Report (http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/index.php?id=24)

Here I even found you a copy of the full version in pdf online for free, just look to the right of the screen when you link. Then compare to see if what he said was true.

9/11 Full Report (http://www.npr.org/911hearings/voices.html)

Moore is such a damn phony it's unbelievable he's able to get away with this crap. Take his whole crusading for Flint. First of all, he's not even from Flint, he lived in the much richer suberb of Flint, Davison, which has a very white population.

These sentences bother me. Here he's trying to prove Moore lies and is full of crap, so he says he's not really from Flint when he made a crusade about it. Yet next he said he lived in a much richer suberb of Flint, Davison. Wait what, wouldn't that still be Flint? Maybe I'm wrong here but hey, it's not every day someone contradicts himself like this.

It was wrong to invade Iraq.
It was wrong not to invade Saudi Arabia.
It was wrong to enforce democracy in Iraq.
It was wrong not to enforce democracy in Kuwait.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I've got a strong feeling that the conclusion came first and the arguments later...

didnt the 911 commission discredit mr. moores claim about saudis being 'secretly flown out' of america after ' not being investigated by the fbi?"
and didnt kean, the chairman make it clear iraq had ties to alqueda?

Yes to ALL THREE questions

show me where specifically the 911 report disproves Moore

I have MKULTRA in another thread! To bad your biasness AGAINST THE REPORT colors how it discredits the movie!

Actually, the 911 Commission Report pretty much dismissed the existance of any IRaq-Al Qaeda link

The bullshit alarm just went off

Ladies and gentlemen please head to the nearest bullshit shelter!

It did Zepp! They stated that they had a relationship! Even went as far as stating that Hussein offered Santuary to Bin Laden but Bin Laden decided to stay in Afghanistan! If they didn't have a relationship then why did he offer santuary?

No--youve been listening to foxnews lies again.

Stated before that it did discredit Moore!

its not our fault your so uninformed but any moderate democrat that disagrees should be purged, starting with that useless sack of shit Lieberman

Thank you for exposing yourself as a far left individual! That puts everything into perspective

what does any of this have to do with Bushs plan to invade Iraq since day One? If Bush was only honest enuf to admit he invaded Iraq for his own personal reasons he might get more respect-But Bushs lies insult our intelligence

He ruled out the invasion on the 15th of September and I CAN BACK THAT UP! But alas its from the 9/11 Commission report.

The bullshit alarm just went off

Ladies and gentlemen please head to the nearest bullshit shelter!

It did Zepp! They stated that they had a relationship! Even went as far as stating that Hussein offered Santuary to Bin Laden but Bin Laden decided to stay in Afghanistan! If they didn't have a relationship then why did he offer santuary?The "claiming things as fact without providing direct sources" alarm just went off. Substantiate or fuck off.

The "claiming things as fact without providing direct sources" alarm just went off. Substantiate or fuck off.

Actually it IS in the 9-11 commissions report. There was a "relationship" but no connection between Iraq with 9-11. Saddam's head of intelligence did meet with high level Al-Qaeda operatives and did offer them sactuary in Iraq. Saddam wanted to help fund Al-Qaeda attacks on the US but it is unclear if they ever got that far. One thing is for sure, and that was there WERE meetings between Iraqi Intelligence and Al-Qaeda.

The "claiming things as fact without providing direct sources" alarm just went off. Substantiate or fuck off.

Ok fine here it is!

Page 66: In mid-1998, the situation reversed itself; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi Intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occured in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we haveseen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.

Before you bash the last part, I never stated in any of my posts that they had Operational ties. I stated in my posts that they had ties. There is a difference between tht two.

I admit I don't know a lot about what sort of legal apparatus might exist in this case, but given the deliberate manner in which Mr Moore set out to use his material as evidence to damage Mr Bush's reputation and ruin his political career...

If the material included in Mr Moore's movie really included such glaring and demonstratable falsehoods, wouldn't he have been charged with libel by now?

I admit I don't know a lot about what sort of legal apparatus might exist in this case, but given the deliberate manner in which Mr Moore set out to use his material as evidence to damage Mr Bush's reputation and ruin his political career...

If the material included in Mr Moore's movie really included such glaring and demonstratable falsehoods, wouldn't he have been charged with libel by now?

Well, that IS possible, but by doing so you would only bring attention to the movie and more people would go see it. The whole thing is comprised of soundbites taken out of context to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

The bullshit alarm just went off

Ladies and gentlemen please head to the nearest bullshit shelter!

It did Zepp! They stated that they had a relationship! Even went as far as stating that Hussein offered Santuary to Bin Laden but Bin Laden decided to stay in Afghanistan! If they didn't have a relationship then why did he offer santuary?

Really?

That's why Bush had to rush out and hold a press conference to dispute the Commission's findings that there was "no collaberative relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda?

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48970-2004Jun17.html

President Bush insisted today that "numerous contacts" between the ousted government of Saddam Hussein and the al Qaeda terrorist network showed that the former Iraqi leader was a threat to the United States, despite a report by the Sept. 11 commission that found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda.


Are we going to have to go through another game of "point to the page number" again?

Well, that IS possible, but by doing so you would only bring attention to the movie and more people would go see it. The whole thing is comprised of soundbites taken out of context to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Agreed and besides, it can't be shown right now for obvious reasons :p

Really?

That's why Bush had to rush out and hold a press conference to dispute the Commission's findings that there was "no collaberative relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda?

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48970-2004Jun17.html




Are we going to have to go through another game of "point to the page number" again?

I never said al Qaeda had an operational Relationship I personally believed that they didn't have an operational ties! What I do believe is that the al Qaeda and Iraq had ties! As stated, there is a different between Operational Ties and Ties

Ok fine here it is!

Page 66: In mid-1998, the situation reversed itself; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi Intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occured in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we haveseen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.

Before you bash the last part, I never stated in any of my posts that they had Operational ties. I stated in my posts that they had ties. There is a difference between tht two.


So - if they had no operational ties, then it was not a relationship that presented any meaningful danger to the US and should not have had any impact on the decisions to go to war. That being the case - why do people keep bringing it up in relation to the decision to go to war?

So - if they had no operational ties, then it was not a relationship that presented any meaningful danger to the US and should not have had any impact on the decisions to go to war. That being the case - why do people keep bringing it up in relation to the decision to go to war?


OMFG! I think your mixing Operational Ties and Ties! I could make a parallel here to the international Community! We have diplomatic TIES with many of the world's nations. However, we don't have Military TIES with most of them. Really the only military TIES we have is connected through NATO!

Iraq had full right to invade Kuwait in 91.. In fact, they had the USA's BLESSINGS...

iraq had ties to alqueda?

I would like to strangle anyone who uses this argument.. This pathetic, stupid argument used by ignorant people who have no idea what they are talking about.

Do you know what Iraq stand on Al Queda is?.. Do you know what Al-Queda's stance on Iraq is?.. No.. you don't.. and you don't know why the possibility of Iraqi ties to Al-Queda is non-existent, even ridiculous

Saddam was a much better leader than any other in the Arab world.. It's just that he strayed from the path America set for him a bit.. tsk tsk tsk.. bad boy.. that's why Daddy Dubya had to spank him.

I mean really Formal - the CIA etc. have "ties" to pretty much every terrorist group in the world under the definition that you seem to use.


Why?

Because it's the smart thing to do!


That being the case, why does ANYONE act with any sort of surprise that Middle Eastern governments have had contacts with Bin Laden's group or other Islamic terrorists? They have their own valid national interests to look ut for too you know and the bulk of the terrorist activities DO happen in their part of the world, so you could even argue that they have a MORE pressing need to keep tabs on these people than most.

Without operational ties, there are no links worth discussing in the framework of the decision to go to war. And given that you have agreed to this as a fact in evidence, perhaps you should also take this viewpoint on this matter else you seem to be grasping at straws.

-Z-

Well, that IS possible, but by doing so you would only bring attention to the movie and more people would go see it. The whole thing is comprised of soundbites taken out of context to appeal to the lowest common denominator.


but if the movie was found to contain demonstratable libels in a criminal court, wouldn't this be the strongest way to negate the movie's credibility and diffuse the threat to the target of its accusations (Mr Bush)?

(and given that government intelligence is supposedly meant to be comprehensive enough to declare war over, let alone use as evidence to sue for defamation with - shouldn't providing this evidence be a piece of cake when the president's own public reputation and credibility is at stake?)

I mean really Formal - the CIA etc. have "ties" to pretty much every terrorist group in the world under the definition that you seem to use.


Why?

Because it's the smart thing to do!


That being the case, why does ANYONE act with any sort of surprise that Middle Eastern governments have had contacts with Bin Laden's group or other Islamic terrorists? They have their own valid national interests to look ut for too you know.

Without operational ties, there are no links worth discussing in the framework of the decision to go to war. And given that you have agreed to this as a fact in evidence, perhaps you should also take this viewpoint on this matter else you seem to be grasping at straws.

-Z-

Did you know that Bin Ladin received little or no help from the US in his war against the Soviets? I don't find it the least bit surprised Zepp but I don't think nations would go so far as to offer Bin Ladin Sanctuary because then they know that they would be a target. Really Zep, I admire you as a debater but the facts don't change no matter how well you try to spin it!

Did you know that Bin Ladin received little or no help from the US in his war against the Soviets? I don't find it the least bit surprised Zepp but I don't think nations would go so far as to offer Bin Ladin Sanctuary because then they know that they would be a target. Really Zep, I admire you as a debater but the facts don't change no matter how well you try to spin it!


I'm sorry but isn't the CIA an agency of the US?

(and if anybody ignores my final point regarding the lack of legal action against Mr Moore despite the widespread conviction of some people that his movie contains demonstratable lies, I'm going to assume you have no answer to it; unfortunately I have to leave this thread because it's late at night here but I'll be checking for responses tomorrow)

I'm sorry but isn't the CIA an agency of the US?

(and if anybody ignores my final point regarding the lack of legal action against Mr Moore despite the widespread conviction of some people that his movie contains demonstratable lies, I'm going to assume you have no answer to it; unfortunately I have to leave this thread because it's late at night here but I'll be checking for responses tomorrow)

CIA is yes but according to the 9/11 Commission report, Bin Ladin received little if any aide from the Government!

but if the movie was found to contain demonstratable libels in a criminal court, wouldn't this be the strongest way to negate the movie's credibility and diffuse the threat to the target of its accusations (Mr Bush)?

(and given that government intelligence is supposedly meant to be comprehensive enough to declare war over, let alone use as evidence to sue for defamation with - shouldn't providing this evidence be a piece of cake when the president's own public reputation and credibility is at stake?)

Well, it is sometimes better to just let things die out....since the movie is being discredited piece by piece in public forums and on news programs...that is better than in a courtroom.

Just yesterday the editor of a small newspaper came out and said that Mr. Moore "created" a headline on his paper that he showed in the movie. Mr. Moore prominantly showed a headline on this paper...dated 19 Dec 2000 that proclaimed Gore the winner of a Florida vote recount. The editor said that headline did not exist and showed the true headline from his paper that day, it said Bush was the winner. Moore is a known liar and socialist who hates the US. He speaks badly about the US when abroad and in my opinion is a walking coronary due to his massive bulk.

CIA is yes but according to the 9/11 Commission report, Bin Ladin received little if any aide from the Government!When did the CIA become an independant entity from the US goverment?

Out of interest, I sometimes read an Irish republican newspaper. Formal Dances, do I have ties with the IRA?

Did you know that Bin Ladin received little or no help from the US in his war against the Soviets? I don't find it the least bit surprised Zepp but I don't think nations would go so far as to offer Bin Ladin Sanctuary because then they know that they would be a target. Really Zep, I admire you as a debater but the facts don't change no matter how well you try to spin it!


Did I state that bin Laden received large sums? No. Indeed, it has been stated often that he did not as he was able to afford his own jihad due to his personal wealth. However the overall support in both finance and training to the Mujahadeen by the CIA is not in doubt, nor has there been any reporting as to the cross-pollination of persons, training, weapons etc that might have occured across the border inside Afghanistan during the war.

As to the sanctuary issue, hell - the animosity between Saddam and Osama is well documented. And this occured - as you mentioned - right after Clinton's air strikes into Iraq, and after Bin Laden had been earmarked as a target. For all you know, it could have been a ploy to grab him and use him as a bargaining chip with the US to relax sanctions.

And for all you know the intelligence on this could have been as accurate as that which claimed that Iraq had WMD.


As to MY spinning the facts, please explain - since you agree that there was no operational ties - how that in any way provides a supporting reason to go to war with Iraq.

The blanket statement "he had ties" is not enough.

In the arab world, yes. And speaking of hands, Bushs masters in Saudi Arabia still cut peoples hands off-these are the kinds of barbarians that are in charge of most arab countries today

You should not refer to them as barbarians. Don't people get electrocuted in the US or are poisoned for certain crimes? Does that make the americans barbarians?

When did the CIA become an independant entity from the US goverment?

Out of interest, I sometimes read an Irish republican newspaper. Formal Dances, do I have ties with the IRA?

PG 56: 9/11 Commission report

The international environment for Bin Ladin's efforts was ideal. Saudi Arabia and the United States supplied billions of dolls worth of secret assistance to rebel groups in Afghanistan fighting the Soviet occupation. This assistance was funneled through Pakistan: the Pakistani military intelligence service (Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, or ISID), helped train the rebels and distribute the arms. But Bin Ladin and his comrades had their own sources of SUpport and training, and they received little or no assistance from the United States.

I hope that satisfies that Arguement. I need to look into it so I would say no for the moment. LOL! I don't think so unless the funds from that paper goes to support IRA operations. You could be unwillingly doing it but I have no idea on that.

While I agree with what you said about the movie, it's a shame that the country doesn't allow the same right to free speech that we enjoy in America.

In the last 20 years how many films have been banned in the US. And did not some people wish to ban this film as well?

You should not refer to them as barbarians. Don't people get electrocuted in the US or are poisoned for certain crimes? Does that make the americans barbarians?

Electricution is illegal mood of execution unless someone here from another state can state that they still use electricution!

By poisoning someone, do you mean lethal enjection? That is used for Murders who have received the death penalty by a jury and that is after the evidence convicts him of Murder. Then a sentencing phase starts and then a jury will decide on what punishment to give.

Did Saddam have ties with Bin laden? There WERE meetings and an offer of sactuary was made, but there was NO connection between Iraq and 9-11.

Did Bush use 9-11 as a pretense to invade iraq? No. They have denied this how many times? If someone has a credible source that says they did i would like to see it.

Did Bush use the UN resolutions and Iraqs refusal to abide by them as a pretense to invade? yes he did.

Was Bush told that Iraq had WMD's by the CIA? yes he was...as well as from British, Russian, French and German intelligence services. Hell, the whole world believed it!

Did John Kerry, who NOW says the invasion was wrong call for it at the time? yes he did...I can post direct quotes from him if needed.

Does ANY of this have anything to do with the topic of the thread? no it does not....

In the last 20 years how many films have been banned in the US. And did not some people wish to ban this film as well?

None that I am aware of. However, if you think there are some I would be interested in knowing about them.

PG 56: 9/11 Commission report

The international environment for Bin Ladin's efforts was ideal. Saudi Arabia and the United States supplied billions of dolls worth of secret assistance to rebel groups in Afghanistan fighting the Soviet occupation. This assistance was funneled through Pakistan: the Pakistani military intelligence service (Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, or ISID), helped train the rebels and distribute the arms. But Bin Ladin and his comrades had their own sources of SUpport and training, and they received little or no assistance from the United States.

I hope that satisfies that Arguement. I need to look into it so I would say no for the moment. LOL! I don't think so unless the funds from that paper goes to support IRA operations. You could be unwillingly doing it but I have no idea on that.

Since when have we been trying to prove an operational tie between the CIA and Osama?

Does it state that Osama was never met with? Nope. Do you believe that the Pakistanis had no contacts at all with Osama? That seems doubtful given the well-documented relationships between Al Aaeda and various training sites and religious schools inside Pakistan.

You are trying to sidetrack the issue by showing that the CIA had not operational ties to Saddam - which we will take as stated, but if you are using that to excuse any involvement or complicity by the US with respect to Osama, then you have to apply the same standard to Iraq don't you?

Which is to say that with no operational ties you have no culpability according to you and therefore, yet again, it should be dropped from any discussions on the reasons why this war was justified.

Kinda hanging yourself with your own words on this one Formal.

-Z-

That or Moore would end up in the hands of Al Qaeda.. by mistake of course.. I wouldn't put it past the Saudi's...

Considering the amount of times Bin Laden & pals have tried to assasinate members of the royal family, i don't see it happening

It was wrong to invade Iraq.
It was wrong not to invade Saudi Arabia.
It was wrong to enforce democracy in Iraq.
It was wrong not to enforce democracy in Kuwait.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I've got a strong feeling that the conclusion came first and the arguments later...

AMEN

Did Saddam have ties with Bin laden? There WERE meetings and an offer of sactuary was made, but there was NO connection between Iraq and 9-11.

Did Bush use 9-11 as a pretense to invade iraq? No. They have denied this how many times? If someone has a credible source that says they did i would like to see it.



Well, He sure as hell raised the specter of 9-11 when he was talking to the congress about the reason to go to war. Indeed, he made that suppossed link half of his argument:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20030319-1.html

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

Electricution is illegal mood of execution unless someone here from another state can state that they still use electricution!

By poisoning someone, do you mean lethal enjection? That is used for Murders who have received the death penalty by a jury and that is after the evidence convicts him of Murder. Then a sentencing phase starts and then a jury will decide on what punishment to give.

and? So your saying as long as a group decide it is ok? Or only for really bad crimes?

Since when have we been trying to prove an operational tie between the CIA and Osama?

That wasn't directed at you actually. I was stating in response to another post but people have always stated that we trained him so I just thought I prove that wrong!

Does it state that Osama was never met with? Nope. Do you believe that the Pakistanis had no contacts at all with Osama? That seems doubtful given the well-documented relationships between Al Aaeda and various training sites and religious schools inside Pakistan.

I know that Pakistan has met with bin Ladin. No one will deny that. They too had ties but they renounced those ties and are helping the United States against al Qaeda. That is why I'm not advocating the invasion of Pakistan. They do need to shut those schools though or revamp their educational system.

You are trying to sidetrack the issue by showing that the CIA had not operational ties to Saddam - which we will take as stated, but if you are using that to excuse any involvement or complicity by the US with respect to Osama, then you have to apply the same standard to Iraq don't you?

I am not trying to sidetrack anything and when did I state that CIA had no Operational ties to Saddam? I never said that. You just lied there about me saying it. Thing is, we have renounced our ties with Iraq when they invaded Kuwait. So in effect, we dissolved our ties with them. Iraq never absolved their ties with al Qaeda thus their ties with them remained.

Which is to say that with no operational ties you have no culpability according to you and therefore, yet again, it should be dropped from any discussions on the reasons why this war was justified.

Actually the mere fact that they had ties is enough for me. If they have renounced these ties and proved that they have no more contact with terrorism, then I wouldn't have been for the war. But alas, you forgot about the UN Violations so I still would be in support of it on that grounds alone.

Kinda hanging yourself with your own words on this one Formal.

-Z-

Actually Zep, I didn't. I used the 9/11 report as it is intended. However, this really doesn't have any bearing on the thread but MKULTRA had to be responded too!

On the thread, I applaud Kuwait for not showing this shame of a "documentary"

Well, He sure as hell raised the specter of 9-11 when he was talking to the congress about the reason to go to war. Indeed, he made that suppossed link half of his argument:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20030319-1.html

I don't see Iraq mentioned in there as having been linked to 9-11. Afganistan is not even mentioned directly, but since they were "hosting' Bin laden and refused to hand him over, that was a forgone conclusion.

None that I am aware of. However, if you think there are some I would be interested in knowing about them.

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/1554318.php

This gives you an idea. But there has been a long history of english films being banned as well. But that was more in the 1960s.

I am not trying to sidetrack anything and when did I state that CIA had no Operational ties to Saddam? I never said that. You just lied there about me saying it. Thing is, we have renounced our ties with Iraq when they invaded Kuwait. So in effect, we dissolved our ties with them. Iraq never absolved their ties with al Qaeda thus their ties with them remained.So you admit that the West happily stayed friendly with Iraq when Saddam was gassing Kurds.


Actually the mere fact that they had ties is enough for me. If they have renounced these ties and proved that they have no more contact with terrorism, then I wouldn't have been for the war. But alas, you forgot about the UN Violations so I still would be in support of it on that grounds alone.Where have Pakistan proved that they have no more contact with terrorism? And do you believe an invasion of any country that violates UN resolutions is morally acceptable?

On the thread, I applaud Kuwait for not showing this shame of a "documentary"You applaud a dictorship widely denounced for human rights violations then. You're not doing yourself any favours here. By your logic we can say that you support the torture of dissidents by the Kuwati goverment.

Well, it is sometimes better to just let things die out....since the movie is being discredited piece by piece in public forums and on news programs...that is better than in a courtroom.

Just yesterday the editor of a small newspaper came out and said that Mr. Moore "created" a headline on his paper that he showed in the movie. Mr. Moore prominantly showed a headline on this paper...dated 19 Dec 2000 that proclaimed Gore the winner of a Florida vote recount. The editor said that headline did not exist and showed the true headline from his paper that day, it said Bush was the winner. Moore is a known liar and socialist who hates the US. He speaks badly about the US when abroad and in my opinion is a walking coronary due to his massive bulk.
This post is just as bad as something Michael Moore himself would do.

The headline did exist. It just wasn't from the front page of 19 Dec 2000 edition of that paper. It was from that paper. It was from an article a little bit deeper in the paper. And it may have been a different date.

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/1554318.php

This gives you an idea. But there has been a long history of english films being banned as well. But that was more in the 1960s.

I see. Although if the distributors went to court, they would win on the grounds of their first amendment rights...but they would have to be US distributors since the 1st amendment does not apply to those outside the US.

This post is just as bad as something Michael Moore himself would do.

The headline did exist. It just wasn't from the front page of 19 Dec 2000 edition of that paper. It was from that paper. It was from an article a little bit deeper in the paper. And it may have been a different date.

It didn't! It came out today if not yesterday that it was on their on that date. This has since been discredited by the very paper that Moore claimed posted it!

This post is just as bad as something Michael Moore himself would do.

The headline did exist. It just wasn't from the front page of 19 Dec 2000 edition of that paper. It was from that paper. It was from an article a little bit deeper in the paper. And it may have been a different date.

Well, the editor of the paper was not pleased at all....and he said Moore fabricated the headline.

Just so you know, I'm not bashing the US. Governments have always banned some films.

I'm not really all that suprised the Kuwaitis banned the film. they're a small country with a big neighbour.
They also have strong ties with the US and Saud family. They don't want the people to critise by association.

It didn't! It came out today if not yesterday that it was on their on that date. This has since been discredited by the very paper that Moore claimed posted it!
Did you read all of my post?

I see. Although if the distributors went to court, they would win on the grounds of their first amendment rights...but they would have to be US distributors since the 1st amendment does not apply to those outside the US.

Fair enough. But a ban is a ban

http://www.pantagraph.com/stories/073004/new_20040730034.shtml

Can Moore explain this?

Well, it is sometimes better to just let things die out....since the movie is being discredited piece by piece in public forums and on news programs...that is better than in a courtroom.

Just yesterday the editor of a small newspaper came out and said that Mr. Moore "created" a headline on his paper that he showed in the movie. Mr. Moore prominantly showed a headline on this paper...dated 19 Dec 2000 that proclaimed Gore the winner of a Florida vote recount. The editor said that headline did not exist and showed the true headline from his paper that day, it said Bush was the winner. Moore is a known liar and socialist who hates the US. He speaks badly about the US when abroad and in my opinion is a walking coronary due to his massive bulk.

This post is just as bad as something Michael Moore himself would do.

How is it as bad as something moore did himself? What Biff said is right!

The headline did exist. It just wasn't from the front page of 19 Dec 2000 edition of that paper. It was from that paper. It was from an article a little bit deeper in the paper. And it may have been a different date.

It wasn't on a different date! Sorry Opal that is what I've said when I quoted you the first time? It was from the front page of that paper as stated by Biff. However, the editor said it wasn't on the actual front page of the said date and showed what the front page, on that date, stated.

Well it was saddams fault too so we cant put all the blame on bush

I am not trying to sidetrack anything and when did I state that CIA had no Operational ties to Saddam? I never said that. You just lied there about me saying it. Thing is, we have renounced our ties with Iraq when they invaded Kuwait. So in effect, we dissolved our ties with them. Iraq never absolved their ties with al Qaeda thus their ties with them remained.


Sorry, I had meant to say ties between the CIA and Osama on that one. And to be frank - I never heard the CIA or Bush specifically renounce their previous ties to Osama or the Taliban.

As to Iraq not absolving their ties to al Qaeda - that certain DID happen. Repeatedly!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/04/sprj.irq.saddam/



Actually the mere fact that they had ties is enough for me.

Based on that argument, I guess the police will soon start rounding up every bartender or waiter whoever had the missfortune of having had a mob boss seated at their table. After all - they now have "ties to organized crime".

You keep admitting that their were no operational ties, but the fact that they had a chat is - to you - enough reason to expend a couple of hundred billion dollars and tens of thousands of lives.

That seems rediculous.

If they have renounced these ties and proved that they have no more contact with terrorism, then I wouldn't have been for the war. But alas, you forgot about the UN Violations so I still would be in support of it on that grounds alone.


You're all over the place on this issue now....


On the thread, I applaud Kuwait for not showing this shame of a "documentary"

Ah yes - when in doubt - censorship is the way to go!

That is certainly in keeping with the spreading of freedom to the rest of the world....

:rolleyes:

Fair enough. But a ban is a ban

Well, thats a touchy subject. Since all countries have the right to keep whatever they want out. It is not really a ban in the usual definition, since the film was not available for showing here in the first place. Of course that is a simple explination.

http://www.pantagraph.com/stories/073004/new_20040730034.shtml

Can Moore explain this?
Did you read what I said? I said it existed, it just wasn't how he presented. I didn't say what he did was okay, but what you did when you made your post like you did isn't all that much better either.

Pantagraph to Moore: Headline use 'misleading'

Explanation, apology sought

By Bill Flick
flick@pantagraph.com
Advertisement
BLOOMINGTON -- The Pantagraph has a message for Michael Moore, creator of the movie hit, "Fahrenheit 9/11":

If he wants to "edit" The Pantagraph, he should apply for a copy-editing job and not simply show made-over and "falsely represented" pages from the newspaper in his movie -- or he should at least ask for permission first.

In a letter drafted Thursday and sent to Moore and the movie's Santa Monica, Calif.-based distributor, Lions Gate Entertainment, the newspaper admonished him for his "unauthorized ... misleading" use of The Pantagraph in the film. He also was cited for copyright infringement.

The letter, drafted by J. Casey Costigan of the Bloomington law firm, Costigan & Wollrab, seeks an apology, an explanation of how such a strange discrepancy occurred in his movie and compensatory damages -- of $1.

"While we are highly flattered to be included in the movie," said Pantagraph President and Publisher Henry Bird, "we are a bit disturbed that our pages were misrepresented."

Previous attempts to reach Moore through Lions Gate by phone and e-mail were unsuccessful.

In the film, Moore criticizes President Bush's handling of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the president's and his associates' ties to Saudi Arabian oil interests.

In a moment early in the movie, newspaper headlines from around America that relate to the legally contested 2000 presidential election flash across the screen. One of them is purported to be from a Dec. 19, 2001, edition of The Pantagraph.

But a check of that day's newspaper revealed the large headline prominently flashed in the movie -- "Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election" -- never appeared in that edition.

Instead, the headline appeared in a Dec. 5, 2001, edition -- but not as a news headline. It was in much smaller type above a letter to the editor. Those headlines reflect only the opinions of the letter writer and are not considered "factual" news stories.

In the movie, The Pantagraph page, as shown, was not how a real page from the newspaper would have looked. Moore's version had a different typeface and a different headline size from what The Pantagraph uses. The newspaper's name, however, appears in the correct font.

The letter calls all of this a "misrepresentation of facts."

The discrepancy first came to light in a July 16 Bill Flick column.

Since then it has become a topic of newspaper articles, radio talk shows and various Web sites.

"In an instance that The Pantagraph prints materials in which there is a mistake," the Costigan letter to Moore reads, "it is corrected. It is our hope that you would adhere to the same high ethical standard and correct the inaccurate information which has been depicted in your film."

The letter calls into question the ethics of how Moore made his movie, a movie whose primary purpose is to call into question the ethics of the Bush White House.

Well, thats a touchy subject. Since all countries have the right to keep whatever they want out. It is not really a ban in the usual definition, since the film was not available for showing here in the first place. Of course that is a simple explination.

True. But it means that at times only one side of the story is heard. Or in the case of the web page I gave, it shows only one side of whats going on in part of the world.
How can freedom of speech exists, when the knowledge is restricted.
AND remember what this thread is about!

How is it as bad as something moore did himself? What Biff said is right!

It wasn't on a different date! Sorry Opal that is what I've said when I quoted you the first time? It was from the front page of that paper as stated by Biff. However, the editor said it wasn't on the actual front page of the said date and showed what the front page, on that date, stated.

Biff implied that that headline never ever existed anywhere in any edition of the newspaper when it indeed did as pointed out by the article Biff linked us to in which the Newspaper itself explains where Moore got the headline from.

Did you read what I said? I said it existed, it just wasn't how he presented. I didn't say what he did was okay, but what you did when you made your post like you did isn't all that much better either.

How? The headline NEVER existed....Moore created it to make a point...which throws his credibility out the window. Just like the people he quotes in his books who later say they have never even met the man. Moore is a demigogue and a liar. How many more discrepancies will it take? Time will tell....

I don't see Iraq mentioned in there as having been linked to 9-11. Afganistan is not even mentioned directly, but since they were "hosting' Bin laden and refused to hand him over, that was a forgone conclusion.


Ummmm - the letter was to congress to justify the decision to invade Iraq The fact that Iraq is the subject of the letter in implicit. And it specifically states that part of the reason why the President has made this decision is to take neccessaru action against those "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

Why do YOU think he specifically included that in such a short letter?


-Z-

True. But it means that at times only one side of the story is heard. Or in the case of the web page I gave, it shows only one side of whats going on in part of the world.
How can freedom of speech exists, when the knowledge is restricted.
AND remember what this thread is about!

Well, there is so much information out there. it would be impossible to keep it all out. besides, look at the movie in question...it is mostly made up lies anyway. Who wants that kind of knowledge?

Sorry, I had meant to say ties between the CIA and Osama on that one. And to be frank - I never heard the CIA or Bush specifically renounce their previous ties to Osama or the Taliban.

We never supported the taliban. We never recognized the taliban. We didn't help them come to power. We didn't supply money to them. We actually supported a different group that was ousted by the Taliban as well as the government that the Soviets took out.

As to Iraq not absolving their ties to al Qaeda - that certain DID happen. Repeatedly!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/04/sprj.irq.saddam/

You just invalidated your own arguement. He denied that he had ties. That isn't the same as renouncing them. Saddam denies Iraqi ties to al Qaeda! That isn't the same as renouncing ties. Come on Zep, did you really think I was going to fall for that? LONDON, England (CNN) -- Iraqi President Saddam Hussein denied his government had any ties to al Qaeda in a British television interview Tuesday.

Denied he had any ties where I included in here that he surely did have ties.

Based on that argument, I guess the police will soon start rounding up every bartender or waiter whoever had the missfortune of having had a mob boss seated at their table. After all - they now have "ties to organized crime".

Again if he didn't know he was a mob boss, he has no ties to him thus he can't be arrested for it. He can be questioned by the cops if he recognizes him and what did he hear but he can't be arrested.

You keep admitting that their were no operational ties, but the fact that they had a chat is - to you - enough reason to expend a couple of hundred billion dollars and tens of thousands of lives.

It was more than a chat Zep! Did you get the part about them offering bin Ladin a home in Iraq? I guess not. That goes beyond a mere chat.

That seems rediculous.

Your right! WHat you just said is rediculous.

You're all over the place on this issue now....

Actually your not looking at the facts in the case!

Ah yes - when in doubt - censorship is the way to go!

That is certainly in keeping with the spreading of freedom to the rest of the world....

:rolleyes:

Zep, Moore has been debunked and Kuwait knows it! Why show something that has been hammered and defeated? I know I wouldn't!

Ummmm - the letter was to congress to justify the decision to invade Iraq The fact that Iraq is the subject of the letter in implicit. And it specifically states that part of the reason why the President has made this decision is to take neccessaru action against those "nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

Why do YOU think he specifically included that in such a short letter?


-Z-

I see...well, as it is the second paragraph and the first paragraph was all that was needed to invade Iraq, I do wonder why it is in there at all.

How? The headline NEVER existed....Moore created it to make a point...which throws his credibility out the window. Just like the people he quotes in his books who later say they have never even met the man. Moore is a demigogue and a liar. How many more discrepancies will it take? Time will tell....
1) He isn't a liar. He is a propagandist. There is some truth to absolutely everything he said--the problem is they're all half-truths.

2) Don't hate me because I'm taking a calm, realistic look and forming my own opinion.

3) Read that article, especially the bold, italicized, underlined part when I quoted it.

4) Stop using Moore tactics, hypocrite.

Well, there is so much information out there. it would be impossible to keep it all out. besides, look at the movie in question...it is mostly made up lies anyway. Who wants that kind of knowledge?

..... What makes you say its a lie out of curiosity?

1) He isn't a liar. He is a propagandist. There is some truth to absolutely everything he said--the problem is they're all half-truths.

2) Don't hate me because I'm taking a calm, realistic look and forming my own opinion.

3) Read that article, especially the bold, italicized, underlined part when I quoted it.

4) Stop using Moore tactics, hypocrite.

He uses half-truths and is worshipped as some second massiah. LOL

I quote you truths and am labeled a hypocrite.

..... What makes you say its a lie out of curiosity?

Soundbites taken out of context....faked newspaper headlines used to prove a point...the movie is just one lie or half-truth after another. It is hardly factual and is made by a man with an agenda who will use whatever trick he can to lure those easily lead by soundbites.

Soundbites taken out of context....faked newspaper headlines used to prove a point...the movie is just one lie or half-truth after another. It is hardly factual and is made by a man with an agenda who will use whatever trick he can to lure those easily lead by soundbites.

Are we talking about Moore or that web page I posted?

He uses half-truths and is worshipped as some second massiah. LOL

I quote you truths and am labeled a hypocrite.
You say that he completely fabricated the headline. If you actually read the fucking article you linked me to (which, by the way, I had read like 2 days ago), you would see quite clearly that the headline did indeed exist in that paper on a different day in a different section. I never said this was okay or justifiable. I only said it was the truth and would like you to step away from the Moore tactics, reread the article, and admit that I am right. I'm not trying to defend Moore. I'm trying to defend the truth.

We never supported the taliban. We never recognized the taliban. We didn't help them come to power. We didn't supply money to them. We actually supported a different group that was ousted by the Taliban as well as the government that the Soviets took out.


Actually, the US gave $43 Million to the Taliban in May of 2001 - over and above other aid - as thanks for their deciding to crack down on opium growers. Nice try though.


You just invalidated your own arguement. He denied that he had ties. That isn't the same as renouncing them. Saddam denies Iraqi ties to al Qaeda! That isn't the same as renouncing ties. Come on Zep, did you really think I was going to fall for that? LONDON, England (CNN) -- Iraqi President Saddam Hussein denied his government had any ties to al Qaeda in a British television interview Tuesday.

Denied he had any ties where I included in here that he surely did have ties.


Perhaps he had the same view of what sort of ties matterd as most intelligent people. And given that he did not support Al Qaeda, he did not feel that a few meetings over four or five years ago constituted anything worth talking about a war over.

It was more than a chat Zep! Did you get the part about them offering bin Ladin a home in Iraq? I guess not. That goes beyond a mere chat.


Because we certainly couldn't understand why somebody in that part of the world would want to keep tabs on that guy... :rolleyes:

In retrospect - don;t you wish that Osama had agreed to such a deal? He would likely be dead or in prison now too.


Actually your not looking at the facts in the case!

Of course I am. You just find them meaningful whereas most of us look at it as a non-starter when it comes to justifying the war. Disagreement between us on the meaning does not indicate a lack of accepting of the underlying facts.



Zep, Moore has been debunked and Kuwait knows it! Why show something that has been hammered and defeated? I know I wouldn't!

So - cencorship is better than showcasing something that, according to you, is so well debunked that it should be viewed as something akin to humor?

What? If we accept your view on the movie, do you just think Kuwaitis are too stupid to understand this "obvious" fact?

Again, why is censorship of a presentation of opinion the way we want the world to work? Hell - we still let Rush Limbaugh speak don't we?

You say that he completely fabricated the headline. If you actually read the fucking article you linked me to (which, by the way, I had read like 2 days ago), you would see quite clearly that the headline did indeed exist in that paper on a different day in a different section. I never said this was okay or justifiable. I only said it was the truth and would like you to step away from the Moore tactics, reread the article, and admit that I am right. I'm not trying to defend Moore. I'm trying to defend the truth.

It was NOT a news headline...it was the heading of an editorial letter...by the writer of the letter. Face it...he fabricated the damn thing and THAT was a complete lie, not a half-truth.

Instead, the headline appeared in a Dec. 5, 2001, edition -- but not as a news headline. It was in much smaller type above a letter to the editor. Those headlines reflect only the opinions of the letter writer and are not considered "factual" news stories.

Are we talking about Moore or that web page I posted?

Moore, I cannot refute the webpage and accept the information therein.

He uses half-truths and is worshipped as some second massiah. LOL

I quote you truths and am labeled a hypocrite.

To be fair - people that worship him as the second messiah are about as bright as those that feel the same about Fox news in my opinion.

That being said though, I expect both to be allowed to continue their propoganda as it IS their right, and I would hope that we all take the time to poke fun at the fringe members of BOTH sides of the political spectrum.

Moore, I cannot refute the webpage and accept the information therein.

Would not be suprised if Moore had is own agenda. Who would?

It was NOT a news headline...it was the heading of an editorial letter...by the writer of the letter.

Instead, the headline appeared in a Dec. 5, 2001, edition -- but not as a news headline. It was in much smaller type above a letter to the editor. Those headlines reflect only the opinions of the letter writer and are not considered "factual" news stories.

But a headline nonetheless and therefore not completely fabricated. I never said it was a news headline. You however did indeed say it was not a headline at all.

I see...well, as it is the second paragraph and the first paragraph was all that was needed to invade Iraq, I do wonder why it is in there at all.

That is pretty much my point. If it did not state directly that there was a link, it sure as hell was included to give that impression - which is somewhat of a dishonest tactic in my books.

Ok so it was to fight the war on drugs though I bet they had no intentions of using that money for the war on drugs. But the fact of the matter is, Zep, we didn't support their rise to power nor support in that.

I guess you don't care that Hussein offered bin Ladin sanctuary. That goes beyond a few chats. If he did take him up on it, I think that al Qaeda would be more powerful than they are right now! And now al Qaeda is in a weakened state. Still very dangerous but weakened with 2/3rds of their leadership either dead or captured.

Your looking at select facts! I've read both the 9/11 and the SSIC and they both reported the ties to terrorism. All the facts I've seen point to the WORLD COMMUNITY figured he had them. NATO supported the Iraq war thus Canada did too. Only France really opposed it but once France was taken out, Germany and Belgium went with the rest of NATO!

Zep, though you basically did lose this debate but you won't admit it, I'm going to end it here! Why? Because it is no use arguing with someone that won't see reason and won't look at ALL the facts! I did look at it all and what I've seen tells me we did the right thing by going in. We have found Torture Rooms, Rape Rooms, and Mass Graves. If that wasn't reason enough to go in Zep, WMD aside, then I feel sorry for your way of thinking. Luckily, the American People don't have you to decide who runs but enough people like you that can.

As of now, this debate is over.

But a headline nonetheless and therefore not completely fabricated. I never said it was a news headline. You however did indeed say it was not a headline at all.

Jesus...the man CREATES a fake newspaper headline. Since the actual headline for that date was different, how could this be accidental? He puts this lie out there as fact and gets caught. Wanna bet that other lies come up about this movie? I know for a fact that his statements in the movie that disabled veterans payments have been cut is a lie. As a disabled veteran I receive those payments and they have not gone down, they go up 2-3% every year. So he lied about that too...of course he blamed it on Bush too. For the record, only congress can reduce the payments, and they have not done so either.

Ok so it was to fight the war on drugs though I bet they had no intentions of using that money for the war on drugs. But the fact of the matter is, Zep, we didn't support their rise to power nor support in that.

I guess you don't care that Hussein offered bin Ladin sanctuary. That goes beyond a few chats. If he did take him up on it, I think that al Qaeda would be more powerful than they are right now! And now al Qaeda is in a weakened state. Still very dangerous but weakened with 2/3rds of their leadership either dead or captured.

Your looking at select facts! I've read both the 9/11 and the SSIC and they both reported the ties to terrorism. All the facts I've seen point to the WORLD COMMUNITY figured he had them. NATO supported the Iraq war thus Canada did too. Only France really opposed it but once France was taken out, Germany and Belgium went with the rest of NATO!

Zep, though you basically did lose this debate but you won't admit it, I'm going to end it here! Why? Because it is no use arguing with someone that won't see reason and won't look at ALL the facts! I did look at it all and what I've seen tells me we did the right thing by going in. We have found Torture Rooms, Rape Rooms, and Mass Graves. If that wasn't reason enough to go in Zep, WMD aside, then I feel sorry for your way of thinking. Luckily, the American People don't have you to decide who runs but enough people like you that can.

As of now, this debate is over.

Well... if you really think you "won", I guess that makes one of us! lol

Jesus...the man CREATES a fake newspaper headline. Since the actual headline for that date was different, how could this be accidental? He puts this lie out there as fact and gets caught. Wanna bet that other lies come up about this movie? I know for a fact that his statements in the movie that disabled veterans payments have been cut is a lie. As a disabled veteran I receive those payments and they have not gone down, they go up 2-3% every year. So he lied about that too...of course he blamed it on Bush too. For the record, only congress can reduce the payments, and they have not done so either.
Biff...

How about you hold yourself to the same standard you are trying to hold Moore to? That's all I ask of you. C'mon man. It's only fair. It's only decent.

I'm not desputing whether or not there are lies in the movie. In fact, I think the movie is entirely propagandistic trash and I'm pretty liberal. I just think that it isn't fair for you to treat Moore the same way Moore treats Bush.

if you care to actualy look at the 911 official report you will quickly realize that mr. moore's movie is complete nonsense. i own the report. i saw the movie. i am no right wing nut case. the movie farenheit 911 is an unfair exploitation of a sad event and a pathetic money making scheme off of the war. im glad kuwait banned it. their government must have more sense than several million of our citizens who dont have eyes that can see through moore's lies.

Allowing citizens to make their own decisons (such as what movies they watch, and what they believe) is a large part of having a free nation, or free society.

On the subject of the US and the Taliban:

(All extracts from the Hearing Of the House International Relations Committee on "Global Terrorism And South Asia." on July 12, 2000. Comments made by representative Dana Rohrabacher. Cited at http://emperors-clothes.com/misc/rohr.htm so I fully expect certain people here to attack the messenger rather then attempt to address representative Rohrabacher's comments).

"After a year of requesting to see State Department documents on Afghan policy -- and I would remind the committee that I have -- I have stated that I believe that there is a covert policy by this administration, a shameful covert policy of supporting the Taliban -- the State Department, after many, many months -- actually, years -- of prodding, finally began giving me documents, Mr. Chairman. And I have, in the assessment of those documents, I have found nothing to persuade me that I was wrong in my criticism. And I might add, however, that there has been no documents provided to me, even after all of these years of requesting it, there have been no documents concerning the time period of the formation of the Taliban. And I would, again, I would hope that the State Department gets the message that I expect to see all those documents. And the documents that I have read, Mr. Chairman, indicate that the State Department, time and again, has had as its position that they have no quarrel, or that it would give them no heartburn, to have the Taliban in power. This, during the time period when the Taliban was struggling to take over Afghanistan.

And although the administration has denied supporting the Taliban, it is clear that they discouraged all of the anti-Taliban supporters from supporting the efforts in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban. Even so much as when the Taliban was ripe for being defeated on the ground in Afghanistan, Bill Richardson and Rick Inderfurth, high-ranking members of this administration, personally visited the region in order to discourage the Taliban's opposition from attacking the Taliban when they were vulnerable, and then going to neighboring countries to cut off any type of military assistance to the [opponents of the] Taliban. This, at a time when Pakistan was heavily resupplying and rearming the Taliban.

What did this lead to? It led to the defeat of all of the Taliban's major enemies except for one, Commander Massoud, in the north, and left the Taliban the supreme power in Afghanistan.

So what we hear today about terrorism and crocodile tears from this administration, let us remember this administration is responsible for the Taliban. This administration has acted in a way that has kept the Taliban in power.

One last note. Many people here understand that I have been in Afghanistan on numerous occasions and have close ties to people there. And let me just say that some of my sources of information informed me of where bin Laden was, they told me they knew and could tell people where bin Laden could be located. And it took me three times before this administration responded to someone who obviously has personal contacts in Afghanistan, to even investigate that there might be someone who could give them the information. And when my contact was actually contacted, they said that the people who contacted them were half-hearted, did not follow through, did not appear to be all that interested, appeared to be forced to be talking to him."

Biff...

How about you hold yourself to the same standard you are trying to hold Moore to? That's all I ask of you. C'mon man. It's only fair. It's only decent.

I'm not desputing whether or not there are lies in the movie. In fact, I think the movie is entirely propagandistic trash and I'm pretty liberal. I just think that it isn't fair for you to treat Moore the same way Moore treats Bush.

Look, if you are going to make what you would call a "documentary" then it should be truthful if NOTHING else.

That this man, who denegrates the US at every opportunity has found an audience and fills his film with outright lies in an attempt to change the leadership of our country is an abomination. As an American, I am appalled that there isn't a great outrage over this obviously biased and deceitful film. That Kuwait has banned it is a good thing.

if you care to actualy look at the 911 official report you will quickly realize that mr. moore's movie is complete nonsense. i own the report. i saw the movie. i am no right wing nut case. the movie farenheit 911 is an unfair exploitation of a sad event and a pathetic money making scheme off of the war. im glad kuwait banned it. their government must have more sense than several million of our citizens who dont have eyes that can see through moore's lies.

I don't like the movie, but they never banned half the shows that are on cable
that send unitelligable information across the waves.

I don't like the movie, but they never banned half the shows that are on cable
that send unitelligable information across the waves.

Yeah, but the difference here is that the shows on cable are not trying to sway the people in a particular direction using false information.

Look, if you are going to make what you would call a "documentary" then it should be truthful if NOTHING else.

That this man, who denegrates the US at every opportunity has found an audience and fills his film with outright lies in an attempt to change the leadership of our country is an abomination. As an American, I am appalled that there isn't a great outrage over this obviously biased and deceitful film. That Kuwait has banned it is a good thing.
...uhm

I HATE MICHAEL MOORE BECAUSE HE IS FAT!!1one!1

Seriously? Show me a link where Michael Moore called it an unbiased documentary. I've only heard it referred to as a docudrama at best--which implies the story is dramaticized (which means one person's side of it is told, nothing else).

Aside from that, he only "denegrates" the things he feels are wrong with the US. Why? Because that's what being American is fucking all about. Bitching about the administration and bitching about what is wrong is how things get changed. I advise you to learn more about our founding fathers and all the BS propaganda they did to convince the population of colonial America to join them in rebelling against the Brits before you make another post like this.

What a stupid law. If you insult our nation we'll tell the un on you. :headbang:

...uhm

I HATE MICHAEL MOORE BECAUSE HE IS FAT!!1one!1

Seriously? Show me a link where Michael Moore called it an unbiased documentary. I've only heard it referred to as a docudrama at best--which implies the story is dramaticized (which means one person's side of it is told, nothing else).

Aside from that, he only "denegrates" the things he feels are wrong with the US. Why? Because that's what being American is fucking all about. Bitching about the administration and bitching about what is wrong is how things get changed. I advise you to learn more about our founding fathers and all the BS propaganda they did to convince the population of colonial America to join them in rebelling against the Brits before you make another post like this.

From http://www.fahrenheit911.com/about/

One of the most controversial and provocative films of the year, Fahrenheit 9/11 is Academy Award-winning filmmaker Michael Moore's searing examination of the Bush administration's actions in the wake of the tragic events of 9/11.

With his characteristic humor and dogged commitment to uncovering the facts, Moore considers the presidency of George W. Bush and where it has led us. He looks at how - and why - Bush and his inner circle avoided pursuing the Saudi connection to 9/11, despite the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis and Saudi money had funded Al Qaeda. Fahrenheit 9/11 shows us a nation kept in constant fear by FBI alerts and lulled into accepting a piece of legislation, the USA Patriot Act, that infringes on basic civil rights. It is in this atmosphere of confusion, suspicion and dread that the Bush Administration makes its headlong rush towards war in Iraq � and Fahrenheit 9/11 takes us inside that war to tell the stories we haven't heard, illustrating the awful human cost to U.S. soldiers and their families.

Lions Gate Films will release the film nationwide on June 25th.


Funny how that reads now.

June 28, 2004
New York Observer: “Sometimes Sarcastic, Always Funny, Mr. Moore is Armed with Facts, and He Presents Them Accurately and Succinctly.”

Moore’s Magic: 9/11 Electrifies By Rex Reed / New York Observer

Michael Moore leaves no turn unstoned. There are multitudes of shattering, seminal moments in his brilliant Bush-whacking documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, that reveal more about the cynicism, greed and ineptitude in the U.S. government than you will ever learn from any sound bite on the right-wing late-night cable-channel blabfests, but one will stay with me forever.

June 24, 2004
USA TODAY: "The Documentary's Scathing Attack on the War in Iraq and George W. Bush's Presidency is Informative, Provocative, Frightening, Compelling, Funny, Manipulative and, Most of All, Entertaining."

By Claudia Puig / USA TODAY

It's everything you've heard; it's also some things you haven't heard. And that makes Fahrenheit 9/11 worth watching. The documentary's scathing attack on the war in Iraq and George W. Bush's presidency is informative, provocative, frightening, compelling, funny, manipulative and, most of all, entertaining. Much of what filmmaker Michael Moore focuses on has been covered in news reports, magazine articles and books. But he still manages to present new data and little-seen footage, connecting the dots in a cogent way.


There are many more references...but clearly the film was marketed as a documentary. Little-seen footage because it was made up....

Well I thank you for at least showing me that. I don't agree with it and I personally wouldn't call it a documentary. However, how about you respond to the rest of that post and I'll go to work.

Well I thank you for at least showing me that. I don't agree with it and I personally wouldn't call it a documentary. However, how about you respond to the rest of that post and I'll go to work.

Actually Mr. Moore has called the people of the US "stupid" and calls our government a "terrorist" organisation.

We may not agree with our government on many things, but to go to other countries and say such things is just wrong. Mr. moore is a socialist and if he had his way you and i would be living our lives in very different circumstances than we are now.

That's odd, because Michael Moore uses the 9/11 report to back up his movie (http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/index.php?id=24)

Yet again I feel compelled to say... linking Michael Moore's personally owned and operated website to prove a point about his fake-u-mentary, means absolutely NOTHING. It'd be like linking Adolf Hitlers personally owned and operated website to defend the Nazi Party :rolleyes:

If you want truth from a 3rd party with no allegiance to anything but the truth....

http://www.moorewatch.com (http://www.moorewatch.com)


...

From http://www.fahrenheit911.com/about/

One of the most controversial and provocative films of the year, Fahrenheit 9/11 is Academy Award-winning filmmaker Michael Moore's searing examination of the Bush administration's actions in the wake of the tragic events of 9/11.

With his characteristic humor and dogged commitment to uncovering the facts, Moore considers the presidency of George W. Bush and where it has led us. He looks at how - and why - Bush and his inner circle avoided pursuing the Saudi connection to 9/11, despite the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis and Saudi money had funded Al Qaeda. Fahrenheit 9/11 shows us a nation kept in constant fear by FBI alerts and lulled into accepting a piece of legislation, the USA Patriot Act, that infringes on basic civil rights. It is in this atmosphere of confusion, suspicion and dread that the Bush Administration makes its headlong rush towards war in Iraq � and Fahrenheit 9/11 takes us inside that war to tell the stories we haven't heard, illustrating the awful human cost to U.S. soldiers and their families.

Lions Gate Films will release the film nationwide on June 25th.


Funny how that reads now.

June 28, 2004
New York Observer: “Sometimes Sarcastic, Always Funny, Mr. Moore is Armed with Facts, and He Presents Them Accurately and Succinctly.”

Moore’s Magic: 9/11 Electrifies By Rex Reed / New York Observer

Michael Moore leaves no turn unstoned. There are multitudes of shattering, seminal moments in his brilliant Bush-whacking documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11, that reveal more about the cynicism, greed and ineptitude in the U.S. government than you will ever learn from any sound bite on the right-wing late-night cable-channel blabfests, but one will stay with me forever.

June 24, 2004
USA TODAY: "The Documentary's Scathing Attack on the War in Iraq and George W. Bush's Presidency is Informative, Provocative, Frightening, Compelling, Funny, Manipulative and, Most of All, Entertaining."

By Claudia Puig / USA TODAY

It's everything you've heard; it's also some things you haven't heard. And that makes Fahrenheit 9/11 worth watching. The documentary's scathing attack on the war in Iraq and George W. Bush's presidency is informative, provocative, frightening, compelling, funny, manipulative and, most of all, entertaining. Much of what filmmaker Michael Moore focuses on has been covered in news reports, magazine articles and books. But he still manages to present new data and little-seen footage, connecting the dots in a cogent way.


There are many more references...but clearly the film was marketed as a documentary. Little-seen footage because it was made up....

Yet again I feel compelled to say... linking Michael Moore's personally owned and operated website to prove a point about his fake-u-mentary, means absolutely NOTHING. It'd be like linking Adolf Hitlers personally owned and operated website to defend the Nazi Party :rolleyes:

If you want truth from a 3rd party with no allegiance to anything but the truth....

http://www.moorewatch.com (http://www.moorewatch.com)


...

From http://www.fahrenheit911.com/about/

One of the most controversial and provocative films of the year, Fahrenheit 9/11 is Academy Award-winning filmmaker Michael Moore's searing examination of the Bush administration's actions in the wake of the tragic events of 9/11.

<snip>



To be fair Bif, you can't fault Moore because the reporters call it a documentary.

As to Moore, when asked he has always been up front that he was not trying to present a fair look. Just his personal views.

anyway, it should be pretty clear from the lack of our vocal support for this movie that you are wasting a lot of time and energy attacking somebody who most liberals view as our own fringe.

But that also doesn't change my views on censorship.

Yet again I feel compelled to say... linking Michael Moore's personally owned and operated website to prove a point about his fake-u-mentary, means absolutely NOTHING. It'd be like linking Adolf Hitlers personally owned and operated website to defend the Nazi Party :rolleyes:

If you want truth from a 3rd party with no allegiance to anything but the truth....

http://www.moorewatch.com (http://www.moorewatch.com)


...

I think he did that to prove that it was billed as a Documentary which we all know doesn't hold water. He used what the press said about the film and that they called it a documentary since that is how it was billed to them.

Yet again I feel compelled to say... linking Michael Moore's personally owned and operated website to prove a point about his fake-u-mentary, means absolutely NOTHING. It'd be like linking Adolf Hitlers personally owned and operated website to defend the Nazi Party :rolleyes:

If you want truth from a 3rd party with no allegiance to anything but the truth....

http://www.moorewatch.com (http://www.moorewatch.com)


...


Oh yes, I'm sure a site with ads to buy Bush-Cheney t-shirts and to "right wing stuff - the conservative superstore" is COMPLETELY unbiased!

lmfao!

Oh yes, I'm sure a site with ads to buy Bush-Cheney t-shirts and to "right wing stuff - the conservative superstore" is COMPLETELY unbiased!

lmfao!

Zep, don't die on me but I was just thinking that too! LOL

*Look, if you are going to make what you would call a "documentary" then it should be truthful if NOTHING else.*

Just as elections are not supposed to be rigged eh?
Moore is biased, his style is propagandist, he is making good profits from the movie but if you ignore the melodrama. he's telling the truth.

*That this man, who denegrates the US at every opportunity has found an audience and fills his film with outright lies in an attempt to change the leadership of our country is an abomination. As an American, I am appalled that there isn't a great outrage over this obviously biased and deceitful film. That Kuwait has banned it is a good thing.*

Fox News anybody?

Oh yes, I'm sure a site with ads to buy Bush-Cheney t-shirts and to "right wing stuff - the conservative superstore" is COMPLETELY unbiased!

lmfao!

Uh, hey Einstein, pleasae show me where I said the site's unbiased? The truth is always biased, it stands to reason, doesn't it? duh

Nice try though... :rolleyes:

That site's owned by just some regular guy who DIDN'T make a fake-u-mentary. Why don't you be a little open-minded and consider reading it. You might learn something. Or is your brain not your own? The archives are where the best stuff resides.

To be fair Bif, you can't fault Moore because the reporters call it a documentary.

As to Moore, when asked he has always been up front that he was not trying to present a fair look. Just his personal views.

anyway, it should be pretty clear from the lack of our vocal support for this movie that you are wasting a lot of time and energy attacking somebody who most liberals view as our own fringe.

But that also doesn't change my views on censorship.

Agreed.

Zep, don't die on me but I was just thinking that too! LOL

Uh, hey Einstein, pleasae show me where I said the site's unbiased? The truth is always biased, it stands to reason, doesn't it? duh

Nice try though... :rolleyes:

That site's owned by just some regular guy who DIDN'T make a fake-u-mentary. Why don't you be a little open-minded and consider reading it. You might learn something. Or is your brain not your own? The archives are where the best stuff resides.

Uh, hey Einstein, pleasae show me where I said the site's unbiased? The truth is always biased, it stands to reason, doesn't it? duh

Nice try though... :rolleyes:

That site's owned by just some regular guy who DIDN'T make a fake-u-mentary. Why don't you be a little open-minded and consider reading it. You might learn something. Or is your brain not your own? The archives are where the best stuff resides.

He's a Canadian Liberal Meatopiaa. He isn't open minded! Me on the otherhand, is opened minded. I know what people have said about the movie and that it has been debunked on most things. He did lie on many occassions. I am reminded by a quote in one of my favorite TV Series, Babylon 5, "A half truth is the worst type of lie"

Just as elections are not supposed to be rigged eh?

Rigged? Really? You actually believe that?

Moore is biased, his style is propagandist, he is making good profits from the movie but if you ignore the melodrama. he's telling the truth.

Truth? As has been noted, there are moore lies in this "documentary" and still moore to be brought to light in time.


Fox News anybody?

How so? The man has made public statements that he supports wealth redistribution and is a socialist.

To be fair Bif, you can't fault Moore because the reporters call it a documentary.

Are you daft? Moore calls it a 'documentary' himself. He calls all his films 'documentarys'. Any and every award he's ever won, was won in the 'Documentary' category. He calls himself a 'Documentary Filmmaker'.

*knock* *knock* ... hello? anyone home? ...........hmmm, the lights are on............ but nobody's home

I think he did that to prove that it was billed as a Documentary which we all know doesn't hold water. He used what the press said about the film and that they called it a documentary since that is how it was billed to them.

Well, under the generally accepted categories of movies - what should the reporters call it? I mean, it is an extreme aspect of the genre, but you can't argue that most documentaries aren't done with the view to present a certain point of view or that arrive to certain conclusions. I think he pushes the bounds, but it sure isn't a pure work of fiction even if you disagree with most of his conclusions.

I took a look at the official film site, and it only ever calls it a film. I don't see it ever being called a documentary. What he might have "billed it" as to reporters is outside the scope of my knowledge (and I suspect out of your scope of knowledge ) so I'm not going to comment, but Moore has been labeled as a documentary maker since his first flick which tends to make on think that reporters would certainly be likely to pigeonhole any new flick by him under that category regardless of what he called it.

Are you daft? Moore calls it a 'documentary' himself. He calls all his films 'documentarys'. Any and every award he's ever won, was won in the 'Documentary' category. He calls himself a 'Documentary Filmmaker'.

*knock* *knock* ... hello? anyone home? ...........hmmm, the lights are on............ but nobody's home

On this I agree with you Meatopiaa! He has called it a documentary and a debunked one at that.

Uh, hey Einstein, pleasae show me where I said the site's unbiased? The truth is always biased, it stands to reason, doesn't it? duh

Nice try though... :rolleyes:

That site's owned by just some regular guy who DIDN'T make a fake-u-mentary. Why don't you be a little open-minded and consider reading it. You might learn something. Or is your brain not your own? The archives are where the best stuff resides.

Quote: "If you want truth from a 3rd party with no allegiance to anything but the truth...."

A "third party" actively plugging a single presidential canidate?

Gimme a break!

Well, under the generally accepted categories of movies - what should the reporters call it? I mean, it is an extreme aspect of the genre, but you can't argue that most documentaries aren't done with the view to present a certain point of view or that arrive to certain conclusions. I think he pushes the bounds, but it sure isn't a pure work of fiction even if you disagree with most of his conclusions.

I took a look at the official film site, and it only ever calls it a film. I don't see it ever being called a documentary. What he might have "billed it" as to reporters is outside the scope of my knowledge (and I suspect out of your scope of knowledge ) so I'm not going to comment, but Moore has been labeled as a documentary maker since his first flick which tends to make on think that reporters would certainly be likely to pigeonhole any new flick by him under that category regardless of what he called it.

He stated it himself that it was a documentary, albiet a dishonest one, but a documentary non-the-less

Well, under the generally accepted categories of movies - what should the reporters call it? I mean, it is an extreme aspect of the genre, but you can't argue that most documentaries aren't done with the view to present a certain point of view or that arrive to certain conclusions. I think he pushes the bounds, but it sure isn't a pure work of fiction even if you disagree with most of his conclusions.

I took a look at the official film site, and it only ever calls it a film. I don't see it ever being called a documentary. What he might have "billed it" as to reporters is outside the scope of my knowledge (and I suspect out of your scope of knowledge ) so I'm not going to comment, but Moore has been labeled as a documentary maker since his first flick which tends to make on think that reporters would certainly be likely to pigeonhole any new flick by him under that category regardless of what he called it.

Documentary...

1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

Neither definition fits...the movie was a whitewashed attempt to bring about a change of leadership in our government. As a member of the Libertarian party...this farce of a movie has actually pushed me closer to voting for Bush. I may not like his policies, but I dislike attempts to sway voters with untruths and deception the way Moore has done.

i am a saudi and really don't care about a movie, that will have no significance if anyone see's it, and by the way i have many kuwaite friends and well no one in our countries bothers themselves with unimportant news like this were are more worried about serious matter. and by the way i have seen the movie in france its not very truthful.

Documentary...

1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

Neither definition fits...the movie was a whitewashed attempt to bring about a change of leadership in our government. As a member of the Libertarian party...this farce of a movie has actually pushed me closer to voting for Bush. I may not like his policies, but I dislike attempts to sway voters with untruths and deception the way Moore has done.


Documentary according the Motion Picture Academy rules:

I. Definition

1. An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.


So, the argument is the emphasis, and I have agreed that I think he pushes the bounds.

Documentary according the Motion Picture Academy rules:

I. Definition

1. An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.


How did he get this past them? ;)

Quote: "If you want truth from a 3rd party with no allegiance to anything but the truth...."

A "third party" actively plugging a single presidential canidate?

Gimme a break!

...you're odd.

He can't support a candidate of his choosing if he debunks and defiles Michael Moore? Just because he supports someone's candidacy, doesn't mean he isn't a "3rd" party. That website isn't owned and operated by Bush. I remember when that site first started. It was nothing more than a cheapo blog. It got so huge so fast, he started accepting offers from people wanting to advertise on his site. The site got bigger and better and he decided to really start making soemthing of it, including a platform for him to express his FREEDOM to support whom he thinks is the best candidate.

Why does that disqualify a person from being a "3rd party"? Because his site flys in the face of your desperate attempts to try to fit in with the 'in crowd', which seems to find bashing America and slandering our President as the 'in' thing to do? I suspect that America bashing will eventually be nothing more than a fad... kind of like the death of Disco.

Your replys to my posts have an air of desperation... like you're afraid people will actually visit that site and see another viewpoint... the truth!


...

i am a saudi and really don't care about a movie, that will have no significance if anyone see's it, and by the way i have many kuwaite friends and well no one in our countries bothers themselves with unimportant news like this were are more worried about serious matter. and by the way i have seen the movie in france its not very truthful.

And this from a Saudi! Thank you for telling us that it isn't truthful. We have been stating that it wasn't but alas, people will believe that it is and thus no matter how much evidence to the contrary, will continue to believe it.

Damn folks - in case you haven't noticed it.... I AM NOT DEFENDING THIS MOVIE!!

Nor do I really care about the semantics of labelling it under a specific genre or not. Labels are just that, and rarely adequately describe an individual element of the group that it is intended to protray.


However, I AM a staunch advocate of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and am against censorship. How horribly liberal of me I know, but I'm pretty damn sure that they are also amongst the cornerstones of your Constitution.

Documentary according the Motion Picture Academy rules:

I. Definition

1. An eligible documentary film is defined as a theatrically released non-fiction motion picture dealing creatively with cultural, artistic, historical, social, scientific, economic or other subjects. It may be photographed in actual occurrence, or may employ partial re-enactment, stock footage, stills, animation, stop-motion or other techniques, as long as the emphasis is on fact and not on fiction.


So, the argument is the emphasis, and I have agreed that I think he pushes the bounds.

Documentary according to the Dictionary and Rule of Reality (ie: opposite of Hollywood):

doc·u·men·ta·ry
adj.

1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.

2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.

but i mean who really cares it is. it is only a movie nothing to get worked up about

Damn folks - in case you haven't noticed it.... I AM NOT DEFENDING THIS MOVIE!!

Nor do I really care about the semantics of labelling it under a specific genre or not. Labels are just that, and rarely adequately describe an individual element of the group that it is intended to protray.


However, I AM a staunch advocate of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and am against censorship. How horribly liberal of me I know, but I'm pretty damn sure that they are also amongst the cornerstones of your Constitution.

HAHA and this from a guy who has a wife that said this movie was True. Oh Zepp your to much!

Damn folks - in case you haven't noticed it.... I AM NOT DEFENDING THIS MOVIE!!

Nor do I really care about the semantics of labelling it under a specific genre or not. Labels are just that, and rarely adequately describe an individual element of the group that it is intended to protray.


However, I AM a staunch advocate of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and am against censorship. How horribly liberal of me I know, but I'm pretty damn sure that they are also amongst the cornerstones of your Constitution.

Oh, we are not questioning the right of Mr. Moore to make his films or say whatever he wants. I would like to see some truthfullness though. Fortunately that is starting to happen now that people are taking a look at his film for what it is.

...you're odd.

He can't support a candidate of his choosing if he debunks and defiles Michael Moore? Just because he supports someone's candidacy, doesn't mean he isn't a "3rd" party. That website isn't owned and operated by Bush. I remember when that site first started. It was nothing more than a cheapo blog. It got so huge so fast, he started accepting offers from people wanting to advertise on his site. The site got bigger and better and he decided to really start making soemthing of it, including a platform for him to express his FREEDOM to support whom he thinks is the best candidate.

Why does that disqualify a person from being a "3rd party"? Because his site flys in the face of your desperate attempts to try to fit in with the 'in crowd', which seems to find bashing America and slandering our President as the 'in' thing to do? I suspect that America bashing will eventually be nothing more than a fad... kind of like the death of Disco.

Your replys to my posts have an air of desperation... like you're afraid people will actually visit that site and see another viewpoint... the truth!


...


Clearly you do not know me at all.

You represented the site as unbiased when clearly it is not without political affiliation. In other words, his version of "the truth" is not any more meaningful neccessarily than Michael Moore's.


I have not attempted to disuade people from visiting that site, just pointing out that it is not what you initially described it to be. I actually support people looking at diverse opinions, which is why I support the right of idiots at BOTH extremes to have their views out in the public domain.

In other words - Moore gets his say and so does whoever this person is.

Now get a grip and stop putting words in my mouth without foundation.

Oh, we are not questioning the right of Mr. Moore to make his films or say whatever he wants. I would like to see some truthfullness though. Fortunately that is starting to happen now that people are taking a look at his film for what it is.

But that right IS at the heart of this thread is it not? That being the censorship imposed by Kuwait?

HAHA and this from a guy who has a wife that said this movie was True. Oh Zepp your to much!


Call me crazy for applying my viewpoint universally...... so yes - my wife is as entitled to her opinions as YOU are Formal.

Or should I censor her? perhaps keep her barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen too?

For someone who talks a lot about freedom, you sure seem to object to people who exercise it.....

Call me crazy for applying my viewpoint universally...... so yes - my wife is as entitled to her opinions as YOU are Formal.

I just find it odd that She WOULD BELIEVE THIS when it has been debunked on all levels from the Government on down to the citizens!

Why does she believe this?

I'm not denying her right to believe as she does! However, the movie has been debunked and exposed for the lie it is and she still thinks it true.

Now I have a question for you! Do you believe that Moore lied in his movie?

But that right IS at the heart of this thread is it not? That being the censorship imposed by Kuwait?

Every country retains the right to import or not import whatever they please. Since the film was not made there, then I don't believe it is censorship, since the film was indeed made. It is more an importation blocking move on their part. All countries do this to a certain point. Since the film is unavailable to the theaters in Kuwait, it is not being censored. Now....if the film was made there and not allowed to be shown, then I would agree that it is censorship.

I am sure there are things that Canada prohibits to be imported from abroad as well.

Clearly you do not know me at all.

You represented the site as unbiased when clearly it is not without political affiliation. In other words, his version of "the truth" is not any more meaningful neccessarily than Michael Moore's.


I have not attempted to disuade people from visiting that site, just pointing out that it is not what you initially described it to be. I actually support people looking at diverse opinions, which is why I support the right of idiots at BOTH extremes to have their views out in the public domain.

In other words - Moore gets his say and so does whoever this person is.

Now get a grip and stop putting words in my mouth without foundation.

I never represented the site as "unbiased". I said the owner of the site owes no allegiance to anyone and is a "3rd party" site, which it is. And you "support the right of idiots at BOTH extremes to have their views out in the public domain"? I'm sorry, but did you call me an idiot? You're rather indignant, don't you think?

..................................................................

"Now get a grip and stop putting words in my mouth without foundation"...

HAHA and this from a guy who has a wife that said this movie was True. Oh Zepp your to much!

Call me crazy for applying my viewpoint universally...... so yes - my wife is as entitled to her opinions as YOU are Formal.

Or should I censor her? perhaps keep her barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen too?

For someone who talks a lot about freedom, you sure seem to object to people who exercise it.....

Hmmm... get a grip and stop putting words in my mouth without foundation?

Do you prefer being the Pot... or the Kettle?

I just find it odd that She WOULD BELIEVE THIS when it has been debunked on all levels from the Government on down to the citizens!

Why does she believe this?

I'm not denying her right to believe as she does! However, the movie has been debunked and exposed for the lie it is and she still thinks it true.

Now I have a question for you! Do you believe that Moore lied in his movie?

I think Micheal Moore is an expert at using pieces of the truth to link together into assumptions that are often way outside the scope of reality. For example, his assertion in that movie linking Afghanistan back to pipelines was unreasonable.

However as much as me may cherry-pick details to support his viewpoint, and distort some evidence, I have not yet discovered a single actual lie.

A persons strongly-held opinion when stated is not a lie. It is the truth as they see it. I do believe that GW fumbled the ball on the war in terror, and that Iraq was a unneccessary distraction. You know I believe that. However the level of conspiracy theory that Moore goes to is far beyond what I believe.

As to your statement, the film in it's entirey has not been "debunked" as you put it. For example GW DID sit there in the preschool class for quite a while after being told that the country was under attack. GW DID take a record vacation immediately therafter, the film footage of speeches was all true - even if heavily edited etc. etc.

You can disagree with Moore's conclusions - but that is far from a statement that a person lied.

Unless you think that he really doesn't believe it himself?

And that is as far as I am going to go with this. You are trying to get me to discredit my wife which I will absolutely not do - nor is it fair of you to expect me to.

To be specific, both my wife and I agree with some of Moore's conclusions, if not always to the extremes that he carries them, and disagree with others.


-Z-

However as much as me may cherry-pick details to support his viewpoint, and distort some evidence, I have not yet discovered a single actual lie.

Thank you for being honest! However, you have just proved that you haven't listened to a single arguement that has debunked this movie. The 9/11 Commission even debunked his Saudi Premise!

Moore's Movie has been hammered and debunked on more occassions than I can think of so anyone that can claim that they haven't found a lie in it tells me that they didn't look at the facts nor listened vary hard since it proves your point of view.

And that is as far as I am going to go with this. You are trying to get me to discredit my wife which I will absolutely not do - nor is it fair of you to expect me to.

In no way was this my intention. I don't think that was my intention from the beginning. All I said was that she thinks this movie isn't lieing. All I said was that she believes that this movie is true. As has been posted, it is lying and it isn't true.

I never represented the site as "unbiased". I said the owner of the site owes no allegiance to anyone and is a "3rd party" site, which it is. And you "support the right of idiots at BOTH extremes to have their views out in the public domain"? I'm sorry, but did you call me an idiot? You're rather indignant, don't you think?


I dunno - is it YOUR site? If it is then I will take the time to read it and get back to you on that.....



Incidentally, when are you actually going to make a single post on the topic at hand?

So far, you just seem to be being argumentative. Hell - even Formal took one look at the site and agreed with me that it was not what you represented it to be - but you don't seem to have an issue with her?

Why is that?

Thank you for being honest! However, you have just proved that you haven't listened to a single arguement that has debunked this movie. The 9/11 Commission even debunked his Saudi Premise!

Moore's Movie has been hammered and debunked on more occassions than I can think of so anyone that can claim that they haven't found a lie in it tells me that they didn't look at the facts nor listened vary hard since it proves your point of view.


Again - you miss the point. A person's OPINION is not a lie if it is presented as such. It may be wrong, but it is not a lie.

A lie is a deliberately spoken misstruth. When a person speaks what they honestly believe - it cannot be a lie.

Again - you miss the point. A person's OPINION is not a lie if it is presented as such. It may be wrong, but it is not a lie.

A lie is a deliberately spoken misstruth. When a person speaks what they honestly believe - it cannot be a lie.

Thats the problem...I don't believe that Moore believes his film to be the truth. Otherwise he would not have fabricated so many things. Therefore it is a deliberately spoken mistruth.

I went to see this movie because my girlfriend wanted to. I never heard Moore say that ANY of the film was his opinion. It was presented as fact.

Every country retains the right to import or not import whatever they please. Since the film was not made there, then I don't believe it is censorship, since the film was indeed made. It is more an importation blocking move on their part. All countries do this to a certain point. Since the film is unavailable to the theaters in Kuwait, it is not being censored. Now....if the film was made there and not allowed to be shown, then I would agree that it is censorship.

I am sure there are things that Canada prohibits to be imported from abroad as well.

Point taken. However I wonder it Kuwait allows Fox News to broadcast there....

Call me crazy - I just don't like suppression of opinion. Yes Kuwait has that legal right, but no I don't think that they should have exercised it in this case.

And that seems to be my answer to the question posted as the starting point for this thread.

Thats the problem...I don't believe that Moore believes his film to be the truth. Otherwise he would not have fabricated so many things. Therefore it is a deliberately spoken mistruth.

I went to see this movie because my girlfriend wanted to. I never heard Moore say that ANY of the film was his opinion. It was presented as fact.

I have to agree with Biff here.

I always thought Saddam was a pretty typical arab leader--no more brutal then the rest-But this is part of the larger regional problem in the arab world where lack of democracy has created this scenario

Bollocks! This maybe a shock but most arab leaders don't gas there own people or invade neighbouring countries.

Point taken. However I wonder it Kuwait allows Fox News to broadcast there....

Call me crazy - I just don't like suppression of opinion. Yes Kuwait has that legal right, but no I don't think that they should have exercised it in this case.

And that seems to be my answer to the question posted as the starting point for this thread.

No they don't allow Fox news. They also do not allow the importation of the bible. Being a muslim country and all. I spent a few months there in 1996 and saw quite a few interesting things. Like the remnants of the Iraqi air force that was at Al-Jaber Air base, The Kuwait City waterside where the Iraqi's thought the invasion was coming from with the houses still bricked up into fortifications.

Jesus...the man CREATES a fake newspaper headline. Since the actual headline for that date was different, how could this be accidental? He puts this lie out there as fact and gets caught. Wanna bet that other lies come up about this movie? I know for a fact that his statements in the movie that disabled veterans payments have been cut is a lie. As a disabled veteran I receive those payments and they have not gone down, they go up 2-3% every year. So he lied about that too...of course he blamed it on Bush too. For the record, only congress can reduce the payments, and they have not done so either.
Actually the payments have been cut big time, over the next 10 years. So that is the truth.

Thats the problem...I don't believe that Moore believes his film to be the truth. Otherwise he would not have fabricated so many things. Therefore it is a deliberately spoken mistruth.

I went to see this movie because my girlfriend wanted to. I never heard Moore say that ANY of the film was his opinion. It was presented as fact.

I'm of the opposite opinion - his history of rhetoric tends to make me believe that this is his honestly held opinion.

Hell, there are people who still honestly beleive in the aliens at Roswell, and that man did not land on the moon, and that Elvis is alive no matter what evidence you might put in front of them.

Actually the payments have been cut big time, over the next 10 years. So that is the truth.

Really? Thats funny, cause mine have only gone up. So how can that be?

I'm of the opposite opinion - his history of rhetoric tends to make me believe that this is his honestly held opinion.

Hell, there are people who still honestly beleive in the aliens at Roswell, and that man did not land on the moon, and that Elvis is alive no matter what evidence you might put in front of them.

Thats true...there are always those who will believe anything. If there was no fabrication, if the soundbites were not taken out of context, then MAYBE I might believe it, but there are just too many things going against it to believe. Oh, there are SOME things in the film that I believe, but there are a lot of things attributed to Bush that are simply not true or were again, out of context.

No they don't allow Fox news. They also do not allow the importation of the bible. Being a muslim country and all. I spent a few months there in 1996 and saw quite a few interesting things. Like the remnants of the Iraqi air force that was at Al-Jaber Air base, The Kuwait City waterside where the Iraqi's thought the invasion was coming from with the houses still bricked up into fortifications.

So they have a history of policies of limiting freedom of religion, and freedom of expression... that hardly makes my opinion of the substance of it any better.

You are correct that it a least makes them consistent, but not that this is neccessarily consistently right.

Anyway - we have our opinions on this matter and clearly we disagree. At this point we are just going in circles and debating side issues.

And besides that .... I'm hungry.

Later.

Thank you for being honest! However, you have just proved that you haven't listened to a single arguement that has debunked this movie. The 9/11 Commission even debunked his Saudi Premise!

Moore's Movie has been hammered and debunked on more occassions than I can think of so anyone that can claim that they haven't found a lie in it tells me that they didn't look at the facts nor listened vary hard since it proves your point of view.



In no way was this my intention. I don't think that was my intention from the beginning. All I said was that she thinks this movie isn't lieing. All I said was that she believes that this movie is true. As has been posted, it is lying and it isn't true.
Thank you for being dishonest? You are pounding away on a guy who has seen this documentary and you are carrying on as if you had seen it. How honest is that?

So if the guys trying to debunk the movie are wrong, and then so are you by default. You are going on bias and personal opinion and nothing else.

The only way you have any credibility is to see it yourself, otherwise, your opinion will just be noted and discounted accordingly.

Really? Thats funny, cause mine have only gone up. So how can that be?
I will post the web site later. It is on my other computer, but it is there.

One of the soundbites that has been debunked...

Bush is speaking to a group of obviously wealthy people and says that "there are the haves, but you are my have mores."

This was Bush speaking at a charity dinner BEFORE the election...and Al Gore was there too.

It is the tradition of this charity dinner that the speakers make jokes about themselves. Gore got up and took credit for founding the charity ala "inventing the internet" and got a laugh because the charity was founded before he was born.

However, Moore made it look like Bush was an elitist looking down at those less fortunate which was NOT the case.

Thats true...there are always those who will believe anything. If there was no fabrication, if the soundbites were not taken out of context, then MAYBE I might believe it, but there are just too many things going against it to believe. Oh, there are SOME things in the film that I believe, but there are a lot of things attributed to Bush that are simply not true or were again, out of context.

Well, that is hardly the purview of Michael Moore only. After all, the Republican party pundits state silly things like the fact that Kerry voted against a total defense spending bill should be equated to him "voting against every piece of equipment that we now use to fight terrorism" - which is rediculous as there is no line-item vote available and even Dick Cheney at the time was pressing to significanlty reduce military spending after the cold war ended.

Saddly, out of context sound bites and missrepresentation seems to be the way politics are fought these days. I deplore that from all sides.

Thank you for being dishonest? You are pounding away on a guy who has seen this documentary and you are carrying on as if you had seen it. How honest is that?

Stating that the movie is a falsehood as well as False Advertising isn't dishonest. I've seen the reports on this movie and investigated it. What I've seen tells me that this movie isn't a documentary but a shame!

So if the guys trying to debunk the movie are wrong, and then so are you by default. You are going on bias and personal opinion and nothing else.

It has been debunked more times than I can think. Even the 9/11 Report blows away one if not 2 of his premises.

The only way you have any credibility is to see it yourself, otherwise, your opinion will just be noted and discounted accordingly.

The only credibility I have is investigation. I've investigated the film and what I found tells me that this Documentary, isn't a documentary at all. Why didn't I see it? Because it was 100% biased. That is why I didn't see this "Documentary".

*is this the same Kuwait that was rightly invaded by Saddam for slamdrilling Iraqs oilwells? The same Kuwait which STILL isnt a democracy even tho Bush the First "liberated" it?

Kuwait Bans Fahrenheit 9/11
And Kuwait has banned Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11 Sunday because it violates a law that prohibits insulting friendly nations. One Kuwaiti official said that the film "insulted the Saudi royal family by saying they had common interests with the Bush family and that those interests contradicted with the interests of the American people."

www.democracynow.org
Oh my God. Saddam rightly invaded Kuwait? Gimme a f****n break! So, now you support Saddam just because it was a Bush who was president during the first Gulf War. Good Lord, the lengths you go to. Supporting Saddam instead of George H. W. Bush.

So they have a history of policies of limiting freedom of religion, and freedom of expression... that hardly makes my opinion of the substance of it any better.

You are correct that it a least makes them consistent, but not that this is neccessarily consistently right.

Anyway - we have our opinions on this matter and clearly we disagree. At this point we are just going in circles and debating side issues.

And besides that .... I'm hungry.

Later.

Well, Kuwiat is an unusual country...the only citizens are the members of the original 22 families that founded the country, about 250,000 people. There are approx. 4.5 million people living there, but the vast majority are foreign workers.

I went into the Fudd Ruckers in Kuwait City and thought I was in Manila. Every worker in the place was Phillippino. So the rulers decide what they will and will not allow into the country. it is NOT a democracy. Oh, and how does one become a citizen now? Well, if you were to move there...it takes 3 generations so your grandchildren would be able to become citizens.

I do think that certain people here I'm essentially in agreement with get too hung up on Moore. There's a lot he can be criticised for- his politics are essentially Chomsky for 4 year olds, his prima donna behaviour (insisting he be put up in the Ritz when he visited London) is hypocritical, his constant shifting on whether he supports the Democrats or not etc. He's certainly no Mark Thomas for those who know his work.

However Formal Dances, I think you're claim to be open minded on this is frankly farcial. Your views on this are easily as rigid as mine or Zeppistan's and I think it's dishonest of you to try and claim that you're neutral.

What's your response to the extracts from the congressional hearing I quoted (page 10 of this thread)?

I will post the web site later. It is on my other computer, but it is there.

You MIGHT be thinking of the VA funding...that is much different from disabled veterans benefits. Trust me, if they cut my payments i would be charging the VA in a heartbeat!!

Besides....Bush cannot cut or increase spending on anything. The president does not have the power to spend a dime, only congress has that ability.

However Formal Dances, I think you're claim to be open minded on this is frankly farcial. Your views on this are easily as rigid as mine or Zeppistan's and I think it's dishonest of you to try and claim that you're neutral.

What's your response to the extracts from the congressional hearing I quoted (page 10 of this thread)?

Yea single me out because I 1)didn't see the film but read up on it and studied Moore and 2)because I went against the philosophy of the film

As for the report, do you have a year for it? Looks like to me it basically happened under the Clinton Administration. Not saying anything but we didn't DIRECTLY SUPPORT the Taliban. Not giving money to any rebel group in there does not me that WE supported them.

Yea single me out because I 1)didn't see the film but read up on it and studied Moore and 2)because I went against the philosophy of the filmNo. I'm singling you out because, unlike say Biff, you're claiming to be neutral and open minded when you are no more so then anyone else here.

As for the report, do you have a year for it? Looks like to me it basically happened under the Clinton Administration. Not saying anything but we didn't DIRECTLY SUPPORT the Taliban. Not giving money to any rebel group in there does not me that WE supported them.2000. It still means America supported them. Particuarly considering your earlier arguments on links between Saddam and Bin Laden. And let me remind you:
"After a year of requesting to see State Department documents on Afghan policy -- and I would remind the committee that I have -- I have stated that I believe that there is a covert policy by this administration, a shameful covert policy of supporting the Taliban -- the State Department, after many, many months -- actually, years -- of prodding, finally began giving me documents, Mr. Chairman. And I have, in the assessment of those documents, I have found nothing to persuade me that I was wrong in my criticism. And I might add, however, that there has been no documents provided to me, even after all of these years of requesting it, there have been no documents concerning the time period of the formation of the Taliban. And I would, again, I would hope that the State Department gets the message that I expect to see all those documents. And the documents that I have read, Mr. Chairman, indicate that the State Department, time and again, has had as its position that they have no quarrel, or that it would give them no heartburn, to have the Taliban in power. This, during the time period when the Taliban was struggling to take over Afghanistan. "

Years not months so you can't wriggle out of it by pointing solely to the Clinton adminstration. (As an aside, when did Bush leave the CIA? I can't remember). It also states expressly that this was a policy of covert support. Please note that the representative quoted is not only a member of the Republican Party, but on the right of the Republicans.

Ok fine here it is!

Page 66: In mid-1998, the situation reversed itself; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi Intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occured in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.

Before you bash the last part, I never stated in any of my posts that they had Operational ties. I stated in my posts that they had ties. There is a difference between tht two.


You stated that it is a fact that Saddam offered safe haven to Bin laden, but the report never claims that. I only see it saying that it might have happened. Wouldn't you agree that you are using Moore-ish tactics? Or doing what you claimed Zepp to be doing, which is picking and choosing information and spinning it to support your own beliefs?

Oh, you don't need to admit it. It is clear from teh evidence of this thread that that is what you are doing. Sorry you lost this debate. It is now over. (hmmm, why does that sound so familiar?)

You stated that it is a fact that Saddam offered safe haven to Bin laden, but the report never claims that. I only see it saying that it might have happened. Wouldn't you agree that you are using Moore-ish tactics? Or doing what you claimed Zepp to be doing, which is picking and choosing information and spinning it to support your own beliefs?

Oh, you don't need to admit it. It is clear from teh evidence of this thread that that is what you are doing. Sorry you lost this debate. It is now over. (hmmm, why does that sound so familiar?)

Actually he did SB! The report would've found out otherwise and they didn't! Just the mere fact that he offered it shows his ties to al Qaeda.

You are trying to twist words and you lost.

The Holy War, I'm not going to deny what you are saying because I will have to look into it.

FD, no he didn't as proven by your very own post. I didnt twist anything. If I did I would like you to show me how, but I will expect to see you glossing right past that, because your claim that I was doing so was baseless.

You may have not noticed where I bolded the parts of your post that don't show substantial evidence that the meeting occurred. Only that they may have occured, which cannot be contrued as undeniable evidence.

You mean like Canada has banned Fox News? Oh, wait, I remember, standards leftists set don't apply to them. :rolleyes:

FD, no he didn't as proven by your very own post. I didnt twist anything. If I did I would like you to show me how, but I will expect to see you glossing right past that, because your claim that I was doing so was baseless.

You may have not noticed where I bolded the parts of your post that don't show substantial evidence that the meeting occurred. Only that they may have occured, which cannot be contrued as undeniable evidence.

Well then show me where that he WASN'T offered it. NO ONE is denying that Hussein was offered this. Maybe you can show me where? I've seen the bold print but so far, no one has come out denouncing that it didn't happen unless you know something that I don't! Besides, if he didn't offer it, that doesn't mean that they didn't have ties. They did.

Well then show me where that he WASN'T offered it. NO ONE is denying that Hussein was offered this. Maybe you can show me where? I've seen the bold print but so far, no one has come out denouncing that it didn't happen unless you know something that I don't! Besides, if he didn't offer it, that doesn't mean that they didn't have ties. They did.

Ever hear of innocent until proven guilty? The burden is on you to provide proof that he actually offered it.

The report disproves that Saddam offered him a safe haven by not providing evidence that he did. unsubstantiated reports from sources that it may have occured is not proof that he did.

How about we send George Bush to prison because I heard an unsubstantiated report from an unnamed source that he was sodomizing puppies. No, it doesnt work that way and you know it.

These ties to Bin Laden are from meetings which never produced any collaborative ties. They havent collaborated on anythign... get it? they talked.

You really need to get past this unproven point which you keep trying to lay out as fact. Just as you claim Moore needs to do.

You mean like Canada has banned Fox News? Oh, wait, I remember, standards leftists set don't apply to them. :rolleyes:

You mean common standards regarding an inclusion of Canadian content to which ALL stations applying for distribution rights have to adhere to?


Or shall I just bring up the new content legislation in the US targetted at Janet Jackson' nipples?

You mean common standards regarding an inclusion of Canadian content to which ALL stations applying for distribution rights have to adhere to?


Or shall I just bring up the new content legislation in the US targetted at Janet Jackson' nipples?

LOL the indecency laws here are pathetic and rarely enforced. Alwell what goes around comes around.

I'm outta here. Thunder storms aplenty around me and its getting darker and I'm about to get slammed by them.

I'll be back when its over!

Well then show me where that he WASN'T offered it. NO ONE is denying that Hussein was offered this. Maybe you can show me where? I've seen the bold print but so far, no one has come out denouncing that it didn't happen unless you know something that I don't! Besides, if he didn't offer it, that doesn't mean that they didn't have ties. They did.You can't disprove a negative. It's like trying to prove that Santa Clause doesen't exist.

Page 66: In mid-1998, the situation reversed itself; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi Intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occured in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we haveseen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.


I don't know, but it appears to me that the offer was made and rejected. Hell, I would have rejected it too. Osama is a shrewd man. Anyone remember the other terrorist that was in Iraq that was found dead? Shot in the back by someone just before Baghdad fell.

Page 66: In mid-1998, the situation reversed itself; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi Intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occured in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we haveseen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.


I don't know, but it appears to me that the offer was made and rejected. Hell, I would have rejected it too. Osama is a shrewd man. Anyone remember the other terrorist that was in Iraq that was found dead? Shot in the back by someone just before Baghdad fell.

I do I do!

Oh and Biff, about the Pantagraph? The paper is suing Michael Moore for that one.

Abu Nidal!! Thats the guys name. He was hiding out in Iraq and was murdered just before Baghdad fell. Saddam always said he did not provide safe haven for terrorists, and in a sense I guess that is true, because he had them murdered before he fell. ;) You might remember Abu Nidal as being responsible for quite a few hijackings in the 80's and the Achillie Lauro cruiseship hijacking as well.

Abu Nidal!! Thats the guys name. He was hiding out in Iraq and was murdered just before Baghdad fell. Saddam always said he did not provide safe haven for terrorists, and in a sense I guess that is true, because he had them murdered before he fell. ;) You might remember Abu Nidal as being responsible for quite a few hijackings in the 80's and the Achillie Lauro cruiseship hijacking as well.

I haven't heard that. All I've heard was that he was in Iraq under Saddam Hussien.

Biff, no matter what we come up with, these liberals aren't going to believe it or they will try to twist it.

I always thought Saddam was a pretty typical arab leader--no more brutal then the rest-But this is part of the larger regional problem in the arab world where lack of democracy has created this scenario
Well, it was democracy, USA, that created the guy in the first place.

Well, it was democracy, USA, that created the guy in the first place.

Actually, thats not true...Saddam took over from his cousin who led a coup that toppled a military junta. The US backed him in the Iraq-Iran war...but did not "create" him at all.

I haven't heard that. All I've heard was that he was in Iraq under Saddam Hussien.

Biff, no matter what we come up with, these liberals aren't going to believe it or they will try to twist it.

http://i-cias.com/e.o/abu_nidal.htm

Well, everyone twists things at times, but thats ok. Google is your friend...

Actually I was mistaken...he died in 2002 in unusual circumstances in Baghdad. However, Saddam had insisted that no terrorists were in Iraq at the time.

If you are going to crackdown on countries who have supported terrorists, would you not have to arrest Ollie North for running arms to the contras in order to be morally consistent? (Do you have a response to the stuff I put up about American covert support for the Taliban?) And Donald Rumsfeld for meeting with Saddam. (Formal Dances, Biff is quite right about Abu Nidal being there. Apart from the fact he doesen't mention that he was largely believed to have turned his back on terrorism, including by Israel).

The US backed him in the Iraq-Iran warWhich by any defination means the US supported Saddam. Do you think all those responsible for that decision should be arrested and charged with aiding human rights abuses?

Originally Posted by Biff Pileon:

Jesus...the man CREATES a fake newspaper headline. Since the actual headline for that date was different, how could this be accidental? He puts this lie out there as fact and gets caught. Wanna bet that other lies come up about this movie? I know for a fact that his statements in the movie that disabled veterans payments have been cut is a lie. As a disabled veteran I receive those payments and they have not gone down, they go up 2-3% every year. So he lied about that too...of course he blamed it on Bush too. For the record, only congress can reduce the payments, and they have not done so either.

Actually the payments have been cut big time, over the next 10 years. So that is the truth.


Originally Posted by Biff Pileon:
Really? Thats funny, cause mine have only gone up. So how can that be?

I will post the web site later. It is on my other computer, but it is there.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0328-11.htm

The House of Representatives have recently voted on the 2004 budget which will cut funding for veteran's health care and benefit programs by nearly $25 billion over the next ten years. It narrowly passed by a vote of 215 to 212, and came just a day after Congress passed a resolution to "Support Our Troops." How exactly does this vote support our troops? Does leaving our current and future veterans veterans without access to health care and compensation qualify as supporting them?

The Veteran's Administration, plagued by recent budget cuts, has had to resort to charging new veterans entering into its system a yearly fee of $250 in order for them to receive treatment. It is a sad irony that the very people being sent to fight the war are going to have to pay to treat the effects of it.

According to the Veteran's Administration, 28 million veterans are currently using VA benefits. Another 70 million Americans are potential candidates for such programs. This amounts to a quarter of the country's population. Veterans and their families will sadly begin finding that they have no place to turn for their medical treatment as V.A. hospitals across the country face closing their doors. With the budget shrinking, staff will be let go. This could mean the loss of over 19,000 nurses. Without these nurses, this leads to the loss of over 6.6 million outpatient visits. Approximately one out of every two veterans could lose their only source of medical care. That is, if they even realize help is available to them. The Bush Administration recently ordered V.A. medical centers to stop publicizing available benefits to veterans seeking assistance. This follows discontinued enrollments of some eligible veterans for healthcare benefits as of January, 2003.

Bush Administration funding cuts will also prevent veterans from receiving their disability pensions. My father was granted 100% disability six years ago for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder associated with the Vietnam War. He deserves every cent of it. As do all soldiers who are willing to go to war. Under the Bush administration, being granted the ability to receive war related compensation has become a rare privilege, not a right as it should be. Nearly a third of Gulf War veterans, about 209,000 veterans, have submitted claims to to the VA for disability. The backlog of unprocessed claims has reached the astronomical count of 489,297, a number which is unfortunately increasing all of time. There are also currently 500,000 Compensation and Pension cases still pending.

WTG BUSH!!!

If you are going to crackdown on countries who have supported terrorists, would you not have to arrest Ollie North for running arms to the contras in order to be morally consistent? (Do you have a response to the stuff I put up about American covert support for the Taliban?) And Donald Rumsfeld for meeting with Saddam. (Formal Dances, Biff is quite right about Abu Nidal being there. Apart from the fact he doesen't mention that he was largely believed to have turned his back on terrorism, including by Israel).

Which by any defination means the US supported Saddam. Do you think all those responsible for that decision should be arrested and charged with aiding human rights abuses?

Because he was, to borrow an abused phrased, "lesser of the two evils"

If you are going to crackdown on countries who have supported terrorists, would you not have to arrest Ollie North for running arms to the contras in order to be morally consistent? (Do you have a response to the stuff I put up about American covert support for the Taliban?) And Donald Rumsfeld for meeting with Saddam. (Formal Dances, Biff is quite right about Abu Nidal being there. Apart from the fact he doesen't mention that he was largely believed to have turned his back on terrorism, including by Israel).

Ok, lets look at these in turn in a rational way. I was in the military during this timeframe so I have some point of reference.

Ollie North DID run arms to the contras. It was brilliant, he arranged to sell arms to Iran (who needed them to fight Iraq). What he did NOT do was sell them spare parts. So Iran paid top dollar for F-14 fighters and other weapons systems, but got no spare parts. The money was used to buy weapons on the black market to supply the contras. Iran was left with useless aircraft after just a few weeks due to a lack of parts and the contras got good supplies. Now, you can argue that the Sandinistas were grand humanitarians, but they were far worse than Samoza ever dreamed of. They invited the Soviet Union in who sent in advisors in hopes of making inroads in Central America. Think Cuba on the mainland.

American support for the Taliban is a misnomer...the US supported and supplied the muhajadeen in their fight against the Soviet Union. Once the Soviets were driven out, the aid ended. Afganistan was left with various factions fighting over the ruins. The muhajadeen evolved to become the Taliban and became the largest group. Their regime was only recognized by two other nations, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Should the US have continued aid and helped rebuild Afganistan? I think so.

Donald Rumsfeld DID meet with Saddam. During the Iraq-Iran war the US supported Saddam and it would only be natural for US officials to meet with him. Would you expect less? Remember, Saddam took over iraq in 1979 and started the war with Iran in 1980.

Abu Nidal may have turned his back on terrorism, but Israel and the US still wanted him. Charles Manson may have given up on killing people to, so should we let him go with the explination that he was just having a bad day?

Actually the payments have been cut big time, over the next 10 years. So that is the truth.



I will post the web site later. It is on my other computer, but it is there.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0328-11.htm

The House of Representatives have recently voted on the 2004 budget which will cut funding for veteran's health care and benefit programs by nearly $25 billion over the next ten years. It narrowly passed by a vote of 215 to 212, and came just a day after Congress passed a resolution to "Support Our Troops." How exactly does this vote support our troops? Does leaving our current and future veterans veterans without access to health care and compensation qualify as supporting them?

The Veteran's Administration, plagued by recent budget cuts, has had to resort to charging new veterans entering into its system a yearly fee of $250 in order for them to receive treatment. It is a sad irony that the very people being sent to fight the war are going to have to pay to treat the effects of it.

According to the Veteran's Administration, 28 million veterans are currently using VA benefits. Another 70 million Americans are potential candidates for such programs. This amounts to a quarter of the country's population. Veterans and their families will sadly begin finding that they have no place to turn for their medical treatment as V.A. hospitals across the country face closing their doors. With the budget shrinking, staff will be let go. This could mean the loss of over 19,000 nurses. Without these nurses, this leads to the loss of over 6.6 million outpatient visits. Approximately one out of every two veterans could lose their only source of medical care. That is, if they even realize help is available to them. The Bush Administration recently ordered V.A. medical centers to stop publicizing available benefits to veterans seeking assistance. This follows discontinued enrollments of some eligible veterans for healthcare benefits as of January, 2003.

Bush Administration funding cuts will also prevent veterans from receiving their disability pensions. My father was granted 100% disability six years ago for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder associated with the Vietnam War. He deserves every cent of it. As do all soldiers who are willing to go to war. Under the Bush administration, being granted the ability to receive war related compensation has become a rare privilege, not a right as it should be. Nearly a third of Gulf War veterans, about 209,000 veterans, have submitted claims to to the VA for disability. The backlog of unprocessed claims has reached the astronomical count of 489,297, a number which is unfortunately increasing all of time. There are also currently 500,000 Compensation and Pension cases still pending.

WTG BUSH!!!

Ok, I see where you are getting this now. The bill narrowly passed in the house...but not the senate. Without that it will go nowhere. This is really old news and sensationalism, look at the date...Jan 2003. Thats the beauty of gridlock, since this has come out they have announced the building of new VA hospitals, one right here in my hometown of Orlando. Not that I will ever use it, the VA sucks.

Which by any defination means the US supported Saddam. Do you think all those responsible for that decision should be arrested and charged with aiding human rights abuses?

Hmmm...since we were supporting him in a war that was already in progress i would have to say no. Now if he had started the war based on our support...maybe, but that is not the case.

Because he was, to borrow an abused phrased, "lesser of the two evils"And that's where we differ. I don't believe supporting evil is ever justified. Saddam is a murdering bastard who kills his own people. But he also was precisely that when he was being supported by the West.Ollie North DID run arms to the contras. It was brilliant, he arranged to sell arms to Iran (who needed them to fight Iraq). What he did NOT do was sell them spare parts. So Iran paid top dollar for F-14 fighters and other weapons systems, but got no spare parts. The money was used to buy weapons on the black market to supply the contras. Iran was left with useless aircraft after just a few weeks due to a lack of parts and the contras got good supplies. Now, you can argue that the Sandinistas were grand humanitarians, but they were far worse than Samoza ever dreamed of. they invited the Soviet Union in who sent in advisors in hopes of making inroads in Central America. Think Cuba on the mainland.Firstly, I hold no brief for either the Sandinistas or Cuba- I certainly don't consider them humanitarians of any sort. But it's undeniable that the Sandinistas were elected by their own people. And I don't think the crimes of the Sandinistas balances out the crimes of the Contras. I've never quite understood why the American right was so willing to support a group with a history of killing priests. Would you acknowledge that the Contras were terrorists? And that the "CIA training manuals" (will try and find a link tommorow- I have stuff to do and I'm about to log out) were utterly amoral documents. To nick an old Jello Biafra quote- "If we want to fight communism, we could start by stopping supporting fascists".

American support for the Taliban is a misnomer...the US supported and supplied the muhajadeen in their fight against the Soviet Union Once the Soviets were driven out, the aid ended. Afganistan was left with various factions fighting over the ruins. The muhajadeen evolved to become the Taliban and became the largest group. Their regime was only recognized by two other nations, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.But some of the aid that America gave was given directly to groups that later became the Taliban. And if anyone had stopped to look at their ideology that really wasn't a surprise. That's before we get into the blind eye turned by the CIA to the heroin trade.

Donald Rumsfeld DID meet with Saddam. During the Iraq-Iran war the US supported Saddam and it would only be natural for US officials to meet with him. Would you expect less? Remember, Saddam took over iraq in 1979 and started the war with Iran in 1980.See my comments on the "lesser evil" standpoint earlier. Do you think Saddam was any less evil when the US was supporting him then he was in the Iraq war. I don't think geopolitics ever justifies supporting dictators or ignoring human rights abuses.

Firstly, I hold no brief for either the Sandinistas or Cuba- I certainly don't consider them humanitarians of any sort. But it's undeniable that the Sandinistas were elected by their own people. And I don't think the crimes of the Sandinistas balances out the crimes of the Contras. I've never quite understood why the American right was so willing to support a group with a history of killing priests. Would you acknowledge that the Contras were terrorists? And that the "CIA training manuals" (will try and find a link tommorow- I have stuff to do and I'm about to log out) were utterly amoral documents. To nick an old Jello Biafra quote- "If we want to fight communism, we could start by stopping supporting fascists".
But some of the aid that America gave was given directly to groups that later became the Taliban. And if anyone had stopped to look at their ideology that really wasn't a surprise. That's before we get into the blind eye turned by the CIA to the heroin trade. See my comments on the "lesser evil" standpoint earlier. Do you think Saddam was any less evil when the US was supporting him then he was in the Iraq war. I don't think geopolitics ever justifies supporting dictators or ignoring human rights abuses.

Actually...the Sandinistas were not elected. They were members of a left-wing Nicaraguan political party, the Sandinist National Liberation Front (FSLN). The group, named for Augusto Cesar Sandino , a former insurgent leader, was formed in 1962 to oppose the regime of Anastasio Somoza Debayle . In 1979 the Sandinistas launched an offensive from Costa Rica and Honduras that toppled Somoza. They established a junta that nationalized such industries as banking and mining, postponed elections, and moved steadily to the left, eventually espousing Marxist-Leninist positions. The Sandinista-dominated government was opposed by U.S.-supported guerrillas known as contras (see Nicaragua ). In 1984, Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega Saavedra won the Nicaraguan presidency in an election that was boycotted by some opposition groups. In 1990 the opposition candidate, Violeta Barrios de Chamorro , defeated Ortega, but Sandinistas continued to hold important positions in the police and army. In the mid-1990s a rift in the party led many moderates to form the Sandinista Renovation Movement (MRS). Although Ortega again lost a bid for the presidency in 1996, the Sandinistas became the major opposition party in the national assembly; the MRS only won one seat.

As for individuals killing priests, who wasn't in that conflict? The Sandinistas killed hundreds when they took over. I guess thats excusable in your mind since your opinions are so anti-US.

As for how the Taliban came about...hindsight is 20/20 vision. in 1987 do you think anyone had ANY idea how things would turn out when the Soviets left?

Again, with Saddam. Do you think we cared how he was in the Iraq-Iran war? No we did not, it was a war, not a tea party.

In 1984, Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega Saavedra won the Nicaraguan presidency in an election that was boycotted by some opposition groups. In 1990 the opposition candidate, Violeta Barrios de Chamorro , defeated Ortega, but Sandinistas continued to hold important positions in the police and army. In the mid-1990s a rift in the party led many moderates to form the Sandinista Renovation Movement (MRS). Although Ortega again lost a bid for the presidency in 1996, the Sandinistas became the major opposition party in the national assembly; the MRS only won one seat.I accept your correction on this- but from that they still had more democratic legitimacy then the Contras.

As for individuals killing priests, who wasn't in that conflict? The Sandinistas killed hundreds when they took over. I guess thats excusable in your mind since your opinions are so anti-US.What part of "I hold no brief for the Sandinistas- I certainly don't consider them humanitarians of any sort" was unclear? I don't think you can excuse the crimes of one group by pointing to the crimes of another. And I'd say exactly the same thing if you were supporting the Sandinistas. I'm not excusing terrorism and human rights abuses in the slightest. You are.

Thank you for exposing yourself as a far left individual! That puts everything into perspective
I always thought my far left status was pretty ovbious

I accept your correction on this- but from that they still had more democratic legitimacy then the Contras.
What part of "I hold no brief for the Sandinistas- I certainly don't consider them humanitarians of any sort" was unclear? I don't think you can excuse the crimes of one group by pointing to the crimes of another. And I'd say exactly the same thing if you were supporting the Sandinistas. I'm not excusing terrorism and human rights abuses in the slightest. You are.

Well...if not for the contras...there would never have been elections in the first place. Once there were...the Sandinistas did not do so well. They really did not have broad popular support.

Granted...what one group does is no excuse for another. Conflicts are like that, all sides do things they shouldn't. Human nature I guess....

I always thought my far left status was pretty ovbious


Yep...you are way off the map...or in that deep hole you keep digging. ;)

I always thought my far left status was pretty ovbious

Yea but comeon, even the far left do say, though very rare, i give when they are wrong.

Yep...you are way off the map...or in that deep hole you keep digging. ;)

LOL :D

As for how the Taliban came about...hindsight is 20/20 vision. in 1987 do you think anyone had ANY idea how things would turn out when the Soviets left?If we fund Islamic fundamentalists, they might want an Islamic fundamentalist state if they get into power. Not really rocket science now, is it?

Again, with Saddam. Do you think we cared how he was in the Iraq-Iran war? No we did not, it was a war, not a tea party.No. I don't think you cared at all. My point exactly. Let's not pretend that the war against Iraq was motivated by any human rights concerns. It was merely about tactical interests. And the West will support torturers, murderers and rapists in the future if it suits their aims. And you'll consider that acceptable.

Actually it IS in the 9-11 commissions report. There was a "relationship" but no connection between Iraq with 9-11. Saddam's head of intelligence did meet with high level Al-Qaeda operatives and did offer them sactuary in Iraq. Saddam wanted to help fund Al-Qaeda attacks on the US but it is unclear if they ever got that far. One thing is for sure, and that was there WERE meetings between Iraqi Intelligence and Al-Qaeda.
Just like there WERE meetings between al queda and the CIA--proves nothing

Just like there WERE meetings between al queda and the CIA--proves nothing

Oh? I'm sorry, I'm not seeing it. proof please?

If we fund Islamic fundamentalists, they might want an Islamic fundamentalist state if they get into power. Not really rocket science now, is it?

Ok, now, lets look back to this with 1980's eyes not 2004 eyes. During the fighting in Afganistan and right afterwards, Islamic Fundamentalism was virtually unknown. That 20/20 hindsight makes things look different. 20 years from now we might be wondering why we did not see the rise of the penguin overlords. ;)

No. I don't think you cared at all. My point exactly. Let's not pretend that the war against Iraq was motivated by any human rights concerns. It was merely about tactical interests. And the West will support torturers, murderers and rapists in the future if it suits their aims. And you'll consider that acceptable.

Now you are putting ideas out there that are not quite right. Was the Iraq war fought over human rights concerns. I think partly, but neither of us know because we were not in the planning stage so we are only speculating. In time we will know. Does the west really support anyone? I think, and this is only my opinion, we tolerate certain things in order to maintain a balance.

Just like there WERE meetings between al queda and the CIA--proves nothing

Come on, you can do better than this.

Come on, you can do better than this.

Careful Biff, he does this all the time. He's been wrong before and if he trots out that we trained bin Ladin line, I can tromp him with the 9/11 report, IF he believes it.

Oh? I'm sorry, I'm not seeing it. proof please?*Snigger* Looks like Formal Dances has picked up at least some things from debating with me then. ;)

Careful Biff, he does this all the time. He's been wrong before and if he trots out that we trained bin Ladin line, I can tromp him with the 9/11 report, IF he believes it.

Well, all this is really fun and games anyway. Fortunately I was there when many of these events took place and have some first hand knowledge of them. looking at events that happened 20 years ago, it is easy to break them down, but as they were happening it was fluid and constantly changing....

You mean common standards regarding an inclusion of Canadian content to which ALL stations applying for distribution rights have to adhere to?


Or shall I just bring up the new content legislation in the US targetted at Janet Jackson' nipples?

You mean like Al Jazeera? Right. Those standards must be "Under no circumstances give the other ideological viewpoint their say."
I would have a problem with the legislation if it banned Janet Jackson from appearing on TV. I wouldn't if it kept such disgusting spectacles as the Super Bowl halftime "warbrobe malfunction" from being shown.

You should not refer to them as barbarians. Don't people get electrocuted in the US or are poisoned for certain crimes? Does that make the americans barbarians?
no, only most of our politicians are

*Snigger* Looks like Formal Dances has picked up at least some things from debating with me then. ;)

Well, we all learn from others. When we quit doing that, we die.

Well, we all learn from others. When we quit doing that, we die.

And yet, my grammatically challenged friend has yet to answer my question.
:(

Ok, now, lets look back to this with 1980's eyes not 2004 eyes. Durith the fighting in Afganistan and right afterwards, Islamic Fundamentalism was virtually unknown. That 20/20 hindsight makes things look different. 20 years from now we might be wondering why we did not see the rise of the penguin overlords. ;)While we might not of forseen the strength it would grow to, I think the nature of the ideology was pretty clear- subtlety isn't it's strong point. To use your analogy, if the penguin overlord states their goals as "enslaving all you humans and making you cater to our every whim" I think funding them is probably a bad idea. :d


Now you are putting ideas out there that are not quite right. Was the Iraq war fought over human rights concerns. I think partly, but neither of us know because we were not in the planning stage so we are only speculating. In time we will know. I think it's unlikely. Why are human abuses bad now but acceptable then?Does the west really support anyone? I think, and this is only my opinion, we tolerate certain things in order to maintain a balance."For evil to succeed it needs only good men to do nothing"- Edmund Burke. (I like quoting right wing thinkers at right wing posters as you might have noticed. It makes you take their views more seriously;)). So I think even tolerating it (while trading with them at the same time naturally) is akin to condoning it. I think it definately goes further then that sometimes though. The CIA's involvement with the Contras was undeniably pro-active. And (just so you don't think I'm merely singling out the US:D) the evidence that has come out about MI5s involvement in Loyalist death squads in Northern Ireland is definately way over that border.

Anyway, I've said this before, but I really am going now. Fun though arguing with people I'm never going to meet on the internet is, it's not worth losing my job for not doing the preparation over. :( I'll carry this on tommorow.